The establishment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT)’s rights as part of human rights has seen unprecedented success over the year, i.e., the number of countries legalizing same-sex marriage has grown to over 30 countries (Masci et al., 2019), and acceptance of LGBT rights globally is also at an all-time high (Poushter and Kent, 2020). Even so, rejection of LGBT remains strong in several communities all over the world. This rejection is mainly rooted in religious affiliation, especially among the Muslims (Habib, 2010), Jews (Irshai, 2018), as well as Christians. In the Unites States, African Americans (Sherkat et al., 2010) and Latinos (Ellison et al., 2011) are prominently more reluctant to affirm LGBT ideals due to their affiliation to their Christian belief. The influence a religion could have on an individual’s life could not be understated. This could not be more evident than when looking at research that addresses the issue of LGBT people of faiths where oftentimes they would choose to forgo their same-sex attraction in order to keep their religiosity intact (Jerome, 2013; Shah, 2018; Zulkffli and Rashid, 2019; Avishai, 2020). For Muslims, due to the entrenched heteronormativity and heterosexism of the society (Sarac, 2014; Zulkffli et al., 2021) they reside in, a number of these individuals would choose to marry women to fit in Boellstorff (2005), and this is the aspect that will be the focus of this study.

The phenomenon of Gay Men in Straight Marriages (GMiSM) in the context of this research setting, Malaysia, could perhaps be summed up through a vignette reported as a cover story in one of the country’s main national papers. The story, aptly titled “Dilema Suamiku Gay” (Malay for The Dilemma of Having a Gay Husband), chronicled the story of a woman who found out that the man she had been married to for 3 years was attracted to the same sex. The story detailed how even though the husband seemed like a good Muslim, the husband never had sex with Sarah, and it was implied that the husband was promiscuous with other men. The article ended with commentary from a religious figure who emphasized the haram (forbidden) status of homosexuality and how glorifying it would bring upon divine punishment from Allah to the society (Utusan Malaysia, 2019).

This vignette encapsulates the all-too-often scenario about the phenomenon of GMiSM in the context of Malay-Muslim Society. From the vignette, we can see how the three aspects—religiosity, sexuality, and infidelity feature prominently even in such a short story. For a newspaper, article to run a front-page story on an issue that is considered taboo in a conservative society like Malaysia where sodomy and “perverted” sexual acts are still punishable with up to 20 years of imprisonment and whipping (see Malaysian Penal Code 1998, Section 377A and 377B); where efforts to promote LGBT rights are actively thwarted by the authority (Devaraj, 2011; Ellis-Petersen, 2018; Su-Lyn, 2018), indicates that the gravity of this phenomenon has reached a critical point. Over the years, this feature story is not the only instance where this taboo issue leaks into the public spheres; other articles of similar veins have also appeared in popular media, e.g., mStar (2018) reported on how wives of gay husbands often come to know about their husbands’ infidelity with same-sex partners through conversations in their phones while myMetro (2016) reported on “sexual problems” such as homosexuality and transgenderism as being one of the factors for divorce among Malaysian couples from the year 2012 to 2014.

The case of GMiSM poses serious consequences, especially toward the wives. Extensive reports have been found on physical and psychological trauma (Hays and Samuels, 1989; Smith and Allred, 1990; Cheng, 2016) as well as health risks related to sexually transmitted disease (Kanter et al., 2011; Klaar, 2012) faced by wives of GMiSM. For the gay men, on the other hand, face difficulty in reconciling their sexuality even after marriage and are likely to cheat on their wives with other men (Kissil and Itzhaky, 2014; Zack and Ben-Ari, 2018). The risk would be further compounded due to the reclusive nature of LGBT in the Malaysian context, and thus, it is absolutely imperative that this phenomenon be explored further to provide a nuanced understanding of this issue in light of the local context. This is where this research comes into play. We adopt a case study approach with Discursive Psychology (DP) as an analytical lens in elucidating the cases presented in this paper. The focus of this research is on how the GMiSM participants construct their discourse vis-à-vis the notion of blame and accountability, as well as look into how their identity as Muslims GMiSM is constructed and negotiated. The notion of accountability in this research will look into how the subjects address their infidelity as well as the dissonance between their Islamic faith and their sexuality.

The subjects of homosexual and Bisexual men who enter heterosexual marriages and their homosexual-heterosexual relationships have been extensively studied since the late 20th century when the field of sexuality was receiving more attention, and the LGBT movement was starting to gain momentum. Though instances of gay men marrying women are mostly reclusive, its prevalence is significant (Ben-Ari and Adler, 2010). Buxton (2001), through her work as a researcher in the field as well as director of Straight Spouse Network, a support group for women who are or were married to gay or bisexual men, gave a conservative estimate of two million men and women who are or were married to the opposite gender. The issue is mainly studied in the context of clinical psychology, where implications of the studies would be helpful in couple therapy as well as therapy for Gay and Bisexual Husbands and their wives.

Reflecting the typical hetero-centric hegemony of the time, research from the Western world often cited societal and religious pressures as reasons for gay men to marry women (Coleman, 1982; Ortiz and Scott, 1994). Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) hold staunch opposition to homosexuality and thus, for many gay men of these faiths, marriage is seen as a “cure” to their homosexuality (Coleman, 1982; Kissil and Itzhaky, 2014; Zulkffli and Rashid, 2016). Gay men also have a strong desire to build a family so that they can conform to their society’s heteronormative norms. This is especially the case if they belong to a conservative society regardless of their religion. This phenomenon is also especially pronounced in China (Cheng, 2016). Chinese society is often viewed as “hypermasculine”; sons are greatly valued because they would carry the family name. Hence, sons are greatly pressured to marry so they can fulfil their filial duty. China’s one-child policy also means that the pressure is even more intensified, as a family would only have that one child to continue their family legacy. As a result, more gay men enter straight marriages just to conform to societal pressure. So widespread is the phenomenon that there is even a specific term to describe wives of gay men in Chinese, which is “Tongqi.” Unlike their Western counterparts, the Chinese Tongqi often face verbal, mental, and physical abuse. Tang et al. (2019) reported on how the patriarchal Chinese society enables such abuses. The husbands will often threaten to take custody of the children if the wives dare ask for a divorce. Society in general also does not take kindly if the wives air the issue about their husbands. Instead of sympathy and support, these women were often blamed for their husbands’ homosexuality. In research of Boellstorff (2005) of gay men in Indonesia, one gay man who was married to a woman refused to divorce his wife after his wife found out about his boyfriend. He also weaponized his Islamic faith by citing that only men have the right to initiate divorce in Islam. This, however, is only a half-truth. In Islam, women do have the right to initiate divorce, but the process is far more complicated for women than it is for men. Women have to engage with the Islamic courts, producing proofs of their husbands’ wrongdoings (a process which could take years), while for men, they could just end their marriage without due reasons.

Gay Men in Straight Marriages also significantly affect the spouses. Wives of GMiSM in study of Buxton (2006) study faced significant trauma when their husbands’ sexuality and adulterous behavior were made known to them. As their husbands delve deeper into their adulterous homosexual relations, the emotional and sexual connections with the husbands start to fade away. The continued rejection deprived them of intimacy and emotional fulfillment. This “starvation” even drives some of them to become promiscuous themselves. They also experienced an acute sense of isolation as the reclusive nature of their situation meant that not many people could relate and sympathize with their predicament. The shame of being perceived as inadequate and the reason for their husbands’ behavior also keep them from seeking support. Similar consequences are also reported by Klaar (2012). In addition to isolation, wives of gay husbands’ participants of Klaar (2012) also had their sense-of-self shattered as they blamed themselves for the unraveling of their relationships. They also reflected on how they were aware of their husbands’ sexuality but refused to acknowledge it. The denial is a way for them to cope as they struggle to keep the façade of their marriage. Considering the profound stake the phenomenon could cause, it is imperative that more research is done to better understand the experience of GMiSM and what compels them to engage in infidelity.

Upon disclosure of the husbands’ sexuality, the couples’ marriage would usually end in its dissolution. However, there are instances where gay and bisexual husbands and their straight wives choose to work on their relationship and keep their marriage. Bisexual participants in research of Edser and Shea (2002) cope with the problem by practicing effective and constant communication so that the wives are fulfilled emotionally and sexually. The husbands’ constant reassurance that they would remain faithful to their wives also helped keep their marriage intact. In research of Kissil and Itzhaky (2014) of GMiSM in an orthodox Jewish community, couples treat their relationships which are devoid of intimacy and romantic relationship, by treating their familial relationship as part of the larger societal institution. Family units were expected to contribute to the community by taking part in religious institutions as well as raising well-educated children.

Conversely, couples in research of Adler and Ben-Ari (2016) went to the extreme end by keeping their relationship open. The gay husbands would keep having sexual encounters with men, and their wives were fine with it. One husband would even relay to his wife about those encounters. The wife then would be turned on by his stories and that had the effect of spicing up their sex life. In turn, Benack and Swan (2016) leveled their criticisms toward the research community for their failure to acknowledge the unconventional and evolving conception homosexual-heterosexual couples have on their marriage and romantic relationship. They also posited that the traditional conception of marriage, where marriage is prescribed as a monogamist, and with someone one has sexual attraction to, is not the only one that exists. Some gay men willingly enter straight marriage because they love the women they are marrying, and such marriage is equally valid. A similar conception is also found among wives of gay men in study of Adler and Ben-Ari (2017). The women were willing to reconstruct the perception of their marital relationship so that the heteronormative, monogamous ideal was done away with to make way for marital relationships that were more open.

This research involved two participants who identify as gay, Muslim and is or had married a woman. They were subjected to an in-depth, semi-structured interview focusing on their experiences revolving around their identity as gay Muslims, their relationship with their wives, as well as their homosexual behavior before and during their marriages. Both participants were in their 30 s. They are given pseudonyms, Fahrin and Muzz. Their profiles are as follows:

In this section, we present our extrapolation of data in two overarching themes. The discourse between the interviewer and the two participants would be made central to our analysis. Furthermore, in line with the case study and DP frameworks, the analysis is heavily contextualized to capture the essence of talks as accurately as possible.

In this section, the findings would be further explicated in a broader societal context. It is undeniable, especially in the case of Fahrin, that the way they present their discourse paint them in a negative light. To simply vilify them however is not enough to address the issue, rather, it would be more productive if we shift the focus of the examination toward the society in which the phenomenon of GMiSM cheating on their wives seems to occur without impunity. The two cases we examine and explicate through the subjects’ spoken discourse provide valuable insight into the lives of GMiSM. What is revealed through their discourse is definitely problematic; while the lack of remorse that is captured through DP and DAM analysis provides elucidating insight into the intricacies of such relationships.

For Muslims, even affirming that act of homosexuality as anything other than sin is a sin in itself. Doing so would mean that the Muslims deny the “words of Allah” and thus, their faith would be compromised. Islam also put great emphasis on not airing one’s (of yourself or others’) sinful behavior to everyone. These, according to Ali (2006), create a ripe environment for the matter to be swept under the rags rather than be openly addressed. The media role in Malaysia in exacerbating the issue is also apparent. Homosexuality is often portrayed in a simplistic term whereby homosexuals are deemed as repulsive and disgraceful (Shah, 2018). Henceforth, it is only natural that Muslim society, in general, lacks a nuanced understanding of this matter. The stigma attached to the perceived unusual nature of homosexuality makes it unthinkable for a lot of Muslims to fathom if their family members or friends are gay. This willful denial aggregates the matter further as gay men are pressured to conform to heteronormative Islamic societal norm and get married.

Consequently, it is also absolutely crucial for Muslim society to have a more comprehensive, national conversation on the issue. To do this, let us look into the past. In canonical work of El-Rouayheb (2009) on homosexuality in the Islamic Arab society during the late Ottoman Period, he extensively chronicled how homosexuality (back then it was often characterized as the desire of adult men toward young, “beardless” teen) was normalized in the society. Affectionate love toward boyish teens was not only considered as inevitable, but it was also celebrated in poetry. So widespread was such behavior that there was even specialized poetic genre dedicated solely for “love towards male youths.” The poems range from being outright lewd “He prized open the boy’s ass with the edge of his “sword,” then pierced him to the hilt with the head of his “lance” (Abu Nuwas, al-Nusus al Muharrama as cited in Kennedy (2012); to tame ones that merely addressed the poet’s chaste infatuation),

(Nabulusi, in El-Rouayheb, 2009, p. 104).

It needs to be emphasized however that homosexuality was never condoned by the Islamic religious institutions and scholars even during that time when it was normalized. Many religious scholars even prohibit adult men from being alone with young men or even gazing too long at them the same way it is prohibited to do so with women. Then, the issue of homosexuality was publicly debated, and rulings or opinions regarding the issue were extensively recorded. As a result, there exists a phenomenon where men of prominent stature made their homosexuality be known to the public. One such figure is Abdallah al-Shabrawi who held the position as Rector of the most prestigious college in the Muslim world, the Al-Azhar’s college, for over 30 years. He was well known for producing a collection of love poems toward his “male beloveds.” However, although he commemorated his infatuations toward boys in poetry, he also repeatedly stressed that his predisposition toward males was not something he wished to indulge; his love for them was no more than a chaste desire. Moreover, indeed, many religious scholars of the time even held the opinion that “a person who died from unconsummated love for a boy could earn the status of a martyr (sha- h ̄ıd), which would guarantee him a place in heaven” (El-Rouayheb, 2009, p. 139).

What work of El-Rouayheb (2009) illustrates is how homosexuality within a society could exist in the realm between openness and prohibition, between piety and carnal desire, and between the sacred and the sacrilegious. The conception of homosexuality portrayed in his work was nothing like what it is today in the Western world nor the Islamic world. Hence, what this presents are an alternative of how a society could operate within the boundary of desire and prohibition. Although, of course, we are not advocating for the Islamic society to emulate the how Islamic empire in the past treated homosexuality. What we are suggesting, however, is that the matter should not be a taboo topic. Comprehensive sex education covering the LGBT spectrums backed by reputable science and informed by works from gender and sexuality studies would be fundamental in tackling the issue.

Other than that, this research also highlights the misogyny perpetrated by GMiSM toward their wives. This is an interesting phenomenon. As gay men in this country are certainly marginalized, we could see how their position as men would still allow them to be in the position of power to oppress women. In Fahrin’s case, his wife’s apparent obliviousness of Fahrin’s infidelity certainly put her at a position of disadvantage. Other than imminent mental distress that would be born from such marriage, the physical harm that could come from gay husbands’ risky sexual behavior also poses a real threat toward women in such marriages. For Muzz’s spouse, on the other hand, we could infer from her willingness to forgive and accept Muzz even after she found out about Muzz’s infidelity that she was also conditioned to accept such a disadvantageous position in her marriage. The two cases presented in this research illustrate the stark reality of the oppression faced by women who are married to gay men.

Finally, the participants’ sense of attachment to their Islamic faith is also a significant aspect of this study. Given that Islamic identity is such an integral part of Malays identity capturing the intertwining of the participants’ “illegitimate” sexuality and ensuing infidelity with the convictions of their faith through their spoken discourse would be crucial in providing novel insight into the phenomenon of GMiSM in the Malay-Muslim context. Through DP and DAM, we manage to explicate how Muzz performed his religiosity in the “Narrative” (Edwards and Potter, 1992) of the event that led to his repentance and how this coupled with “Vivid Description” (Edwards and Potter, 1992) worked to further push heteronormative Malay-Muslim hegemony in Malaysia. Fahrin also succumbs to the same heteronormative ideal. He acknowledges that engaging in gay sex is definitely forbidden in Islam, as well as practices Islamic obligations diligently. This is in stark contrast to the way he presented his discourse regarding his infidelity, where it was presented as if he was inculpable for his cheating; instead, he put the blame on his wife, who he deems as lacking in living up to his expectation of how a wife should be. Therefore, this research manages to highlight the disconnection between Fahrin’s aspired Islamic ideal and his actual lived reality.

The notion of Discourse as Action is also an important aspect to look into. For Muzz, he utilized the opportunity to tell his story in the interview process as a way of reaffirming his stance against homosexuality despite him being a homosexual himself. The delivery of the horror he faced when he almost died of HIV-related complications served as a rather compelling precautionary account from a repentant homosexual of why his fellow gay Muslims should not embrace homosexuality. For Fahrin, on the other hand, his account of his infidelity was foregrounded. The blatant blaming of his wife provides a rather illuminating cognizance into GMiSM’s psyche. From Fahrin’s discourse, we can see how Fahrin distanced himself from the gravity of his action by maneuvering his discourse to deflect accountability and blame toward his wife. The nonchalant attitude he assumed concerning his unfaithfulness is another crucial aspect that ought to be addressed, i.e., what drives Fahrin to be so transparent with his feeling? We opined that this reflects the prevalence of GMiSM cheating on their wives so that Fahrin felt that what he expressed was neither shocking nor obscene.

As the literature suggests, the prevalence of infidelity among GMiSM causes significant problems toward the spouses as well as a great conflict to such relationships. Hence, this study provides further nuanced insights into the psyche of GMiSM, particularly on their infidelity. Through DP and DAM, we elucidated on account of blame and accountability when they talk about this topic. The role of the subjects’ Islamic faith is also explicated vis-à-vis their sexuality and infidelity. The struggle of Fahrin and Muzz in grappling with their sexuality in light of their faith is common among homosexual Muslims in Malaysia (Shamsudin and Ghazali, 2011; Jerome, 2013; Zulkffli and Rashid, 2019). For Fahrin, his inability to do away with his infidelity despite describing himself as a practicing Muslim and acknowledging that it is wrong is indicative of how religious and social institutions in Malaysia fail to address the LGBT dilemma adequately. Muzz, on the other hand, uses the interview process as a way to relay his narrative on how he came about to his repentance. It is crucial to note that the two subjects subvert and reject the conception of sexuality as it is commonly advocated in the Western world. All in all, as this research only addresses GMiSM, through two cases, further research with more subjects and multifaceted approaches are needed to provide a complete picture of the phenomenon of GMiSM.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

MZ and RA conceived the original idea. MZ carried out the research. RA helped to supervise the research. MZ, RA, MK, and HI, wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.