Romantic Friendship: Not Just a Code Word for Gay
by Heather Elizabeth Peterson
"I did not then entreat to have her stay;
It was your pleasure and your own remorse.
I was too young that time to value her,
But now I know her. If she be a traitor,
Why, so am I. We still have slept together,
Rose at an instant, learned, played, eat together;
And wheresoe'er we went, like Juno's swans,
Still we went coupled and inseparable."
—Celia in William Shakespeare's As You Like It (1600)
A number of writers of homoerotic fiction have remarked to me that they write about romantic love because they believe it has been the most intimate form of love throughout history. The above passage from Shakespeare would seem to be proof of that statement.
Yet in fact the passage is evidence of a belief that was once widely held in English-speaking countries but has now been largely forgotten: that romantic love need not be accompanied by erotic love.
Passages about friends offering romantic statements and gestures toward one another abound in historical literature and documents. A look at historical literature will turn up plenty of tales in which two friends send each other love letters, kiss each other on the lips, and cuddle together. Other activities, such as sleeping together or professing undying love, are also common. Modern readers tend to assume that these "romantic friendships," as they are often called, must have their origins in sexual attraction.
Romantic friendships cause problems for historians as well. When friends in history act romantically toward one another, is hidden sexual activity taking place? Are the friends sexually attracted to one another but not acting on their desires? Or are they (in the contemptuous phrase of a world that has devalued friendship) "just friends"?
The most historically honest answer seems to be, "All three." We know that same-sex lovers have sometimes hidden their erotic activities under the guise of friendship. We also have evidence that some of the friends who acted romantically toward one another throughout history were sexually attracted but did not realize this.
This second statement is as far as most historians are prepared to go. The fact is that romantic friendship has mainly been studied by scholars of gay and lesbian history. Living in a world where romantic friendship is no longer a living tradition, and seeking the roots of gay and lesbian history, many of these scholars have assumed that people who have romantic feelings for each other must be sexually attracted toward one another, even if they do not act on that attraction.
Yet in recent years a handful of people who are in romantic friendships have come forward and flatly denied this to be the case. Certainly one can argue that the division between sexual and nonsexual desires is hard to pinpoint. But in practice, we recognize that some relationships involve so little sexual desire that it is proper to refer to these relationships as non-erotic. Some participants in romantic friendships claim that their relationships are non-erotic.
If we deny this assertion, we must face the fact that modern-day romantic friends have the weight of history on their side. Only in relatively recent times has it been assumed that romantic feelings can only exist where erotic feelings are present. The very term romantic friendship was coined at the point in history (the nineteenth century) when this assertion began to be made. Until then, everyone assumed that, while not all friendships were romantic, romance was compatible with friendship.
For many centuries, in fact, romantic same-sex friendships played a much larger role in society than romantic erotic love between men and women.
"I know of these romantic friendships of the English and the Germans. They are not Latin. I think they are very good if they do not go on too long."
—Cara in Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited (1944)
In classical times, the boundary between romantic friendship and erotic love was often blurred because nearly everyone, including people opposed to homosexuality, assumed that male/male sexual attraction was ubiquitous. Greek and Roman writers used the word "friend" interchangeably to describe men with same-sex feelings that were clearly erotic, men with same-sex feelings that were clearly platonic, and men who may or may not have held erotic same-sex feelings. Many classical writers saw personal relationships as being located somewhere on a continuum between sexual love and platonic love. Activities that we would now regard as romantic could fall on either end of the spectrum.
In the Middle Ages, Christians built a strong wall between erotic and platonic feelings, declaring that friendship was something entirely different from sexual attraction. One of the side benefits of this is that friendships between males and females flourished as they never had before, since it was somewhat easier now for men and women to declare their love for one another without being assumed to be lovers in the sexual sense.
The immediate question arose as to whether romantic activities, such as writing love letters, fell into the sphere of friendship or sexuality. Given how much distrust many medieval Christians had of sexuality and how highly they exalted spiritual friendships, it is perhaps not surprising that they declared such activities to be legitimate forms of friendship. Clerics wrote love letters to Jesus and to each other, apparently believing, in most cases, that their feelings were entirely platonic. As a result, the classical continuum between friendship and romance was preserved, although the continuum between romance and sexuality had been sharply broken.
By the time the late Middle Ages arrived, male romantic friendship, while still important, had begun to be eclipsed by male/female romantic love. Courtly love, as it was called, was something of a headache for church officials. Officially, the church view had been, since earliest Christian times, that friendships between men and women were legitimate forms of love. Courtly love, though, went beyond this, declaring that male/female erotic love that was not consummated could also play a legitimate role in society. Not surprisingly, some courtly lovers wanted to go further than this. The wall between romance and sexuality was breaking down in a manner that made church officials more suspicious of romantic feelings. Increasingly, the ideal of male/female friendship would come under attack, until such friendships went into decline as a societal institution until the late twentieth century.
In the midst of all this, the Renaissance arrived, and Europeans received new access to classical writings on friendship. Male romantic friendship, which had looked for a while as though it would not survive as a strong societal institution, unexpectedly rebounded. Even more surprisingly, female romantic friendships became popular also.
Romantic friendships did not yet have a special name, for Renaissance people, like medieval people, assumed that romantic activities could legitimately occur within friendships. This made it easy for writers such as Shakespeare to insert romantic friendships into their tales. Regardless as to what their own views on such matters might be, Renaissance authors could assume that their audiences believed that romantic feelings can exist where erotic love is not present.
Thus far in European history, romantic friendship had a relatively untroubled history. So what happened?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Note To Men
While my journal/blog has been 99% about women, I suddenly realized I didn't want to leave the guys out (it wouldn't be fair)! Unfortunately it's true that patriarchal culture reinforces the stereotype that men, and particularly gay men, are hypersexual and hence incapable of forming a long-term platonic relationship resembling Boston marriage. Well, I believe it is possible (although extremely unlikely) for men to pursue this kind of thing. It's just that, according to my expertise on the subject, there has been no documented case of such a union between males. This is not to say there aren't any. In fact, romantic friendships among men actually existed back then.
However, that is not entirely the point here. For example, I noticed that ALL MEN (regardless of sexual orientation) are extremely uncomfortable, not just with their bodies pressed closely together, but also with expressing affection and genuine fondness for another man. For some reason, true (nonsexual) intimacy with each other sounds scary; among other things to ponder. That is why I'm going to devote the next sixteen entries exclusively to men, ending with a song titled "Guy Love".
But first, here's a very interesting article you should read. It is written by Heather Elizabeth Peterson. The main idea is that only in relatively recent times has it been assumed that romantic feelings can only exist where erotic feelings are present. However, this is not so. Her assertion states how people from the past held the belief that romance was compatible with friendship; that romantic love can exist alongside platonic feelings too. In other words, activities that we would now regard as romantic could fall on either end of the spectrum (Friends or lovers). And I explained this a bit in the previous entry titled, "Revelations: The Truth & Paradigm Shift". I just wanted to explore this in greater depth.
Yet, the heart of the article is trying to say the term "Romantic Friendship" is not just a code word for gay (although some gays/lesbians did hide under the guise of romantic friends), that it isn't really the stepchild of homoeroticism nor a 'cousin' of lesbianism; not even a subcategory of anything. Rather, it is trying to say romantic friendship really does have it's own distinctive features, and is truly a living force of its own, considered one of the highest forms of human emotion and behavior & worthy of profound sentiments! In fact, I believe the loss of romantic friendship was a loss to humanity.
However, that is not entirely the point here. For example, I noticed that ALL MEN (regardless of sexual orientation) are extremely uncomfortable, not just with their bodies pressed closely together, but also with expressing affection and genuine fondness for another man. For some reason, true (nonsexual) intimacy with each other sounds scary; among other things to ponder. That is why I'm going to devote the next sixteen entries exclusively to men, ending with a song titled "Guy Love".
But first, here's a very interesting article you should read. It is written by Heather Elizabeth Peterson. The main idea is that only in relatively recent times has it been assumed that romantic feelings can only exist where erotic feelings are present. However, this is not so. Her assertion states how people from the past held the belief that romance was compatible with friendship; that romantic love can exist alongside platonic feelings too. In other words, activities that we would now regard as romantic could fall on either end of the spectrum (Friends or lovers). And I explained this a bit in the previous entry titled, "Revelations: The Truth & Paradigm Shift". I just wanted to explore this in greater depth.
Yet, the heart of the article is trying to say the term "Romantic Friendship" is not just a code word for gay (although some gays/lesbians did hide under the guise of romantic friends), that it isn't really the stepchild of homoeroticism nor a 'cousin' of lesbianism; not even a subcategory of anything. Rather, it is trying to say romantic friendship really does have it's own distinctive features, and is truly a living force of its own, considered one of the highest forms of human emotion and behavior & worthy of profound sentiments! In fact, I believe the loss of romantic friendship was a loss to humanity.
Marie-Antoinette & Axel Fersen
Marie-Antoinette and Axel Fersen: A Romantic Friendship
Written by Lisa Sanderson
Mar 31, 2009
Count Axel Fersen is mostly famous as the "alleged lover" of Marie-Antoinette. Historians disagree about whether they were lovers or not.
Nesta Webster, who wrote a biography of Marie Antoinette tried to put this theory to rest. But other biographers, such as Evelyn Lever, think that Fersen and Marie-Antoinette did have "an affair."
The son of Count von Fersen the Elder and the Countess De La Gardie; Fersen was born into the Swedish nobility. After being educated in Turin and Strasbourg, he distinguished himself by fighting for the French. He went to America as General Rochambeau’s adjutant where he distinguished himself at the siege of Yorktown in 1781. He became proprietary colonel of the Royal Swedish regiment in France.
~~Fersen and Marie Antoinette~~
Fersen and Marie Antoinette met at a masked ball in France when they were both very young. She was still the Dauphine or French Crown Princess. The Dauphine found the tall, handsome man very attractive. Years later, she remembered him and introduced him to the whole Court as an ‘old acquaintance.'
Fersen became the envoy of the Swedish King in France and became very good friends with the royal family. They saw each other at Court functions, played cards together, and Fersen became part of the Queen’s circle at the Petit Trianon. Here she escaped from her many problems, including court intrigues and vicious propaganda, by holding concerts, dances and plays, for her friends. Unfortunately, she was linked romantically with some of the men whom she met at the Trianon so her escape did not help. Fersen was not associated with Marie Antoinette in these rumors, perhaps because he had to spend years away doing military service and fulfilling his duties to the Swedish King.
~~Marie-Antoinette’s Attempted Escape~~
After the French Revolution Fersen helped the royal family escape to Varennes. Disguised as a coachman, he drove the carriage on the first leg of their journey. Unfortunately, the family was caught and dragged back to Paris, where they were imprisoned in the Tuileries. The King and Queen awaited trial by the revolutionaries.
~~The Romance of Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen~~
There is no doubt that Marie Antoinette and Fersen were very attracted to each other. She wrote to him that: “I can tell you that I love you,” and he wrote to his sister that he could not marry because the woman who he wanted to marry was unavailable and called Marie Antoinette ‘perfect’. Some historians, such as Vincent Cronin and Antonia Fraser, suggest that they probably did become lovers at the Tuileries Palace. There is little evidence for this, however. Fersen wrote a French phrase in his diary after their meeting which was his usual phrase for sleeping with a lady. This phrase is apparently smudged so it really provides little evidence for the theory.
~~Fersen’s Death~~
Fersen supported the Swedish King Gustavus IV who was overthrown in a revolution of 1809. When the popular choice for King, Christian August, was poisoned and died, Fersen was believed by many to be responsible. He was murdered horribly by an angry mob in 1810.
Written by Lisa Sanderson
Mar 31, 2009
Count Axel Fersen is mostly famous as the "alleged lover" of Marie-Antoinette. Historians disagree about whether they were lovers or not.
Nesta Webster, who wrote a biography of Marie Antoinette tried to put this theory to rest. But other biographers, such as Evelyn Lever, think that Fersen and Marie-Antoinette did have "an affair."
The son of Count von Fersen the Elder and the Countess De La Gardie; Fersen was born into the Swedish nobility. After being educated in Turin and Strasbourg, he distinguished himself by fighting for the French. He went to America as General Rochambeau’s adjutant where he distinguished himself at the siege of Yorktown in 1781. He became proprietary colonel of the Royal Swedish regiment in France.
~~Fersen and Marie Antoinette~~
Fersen and Marie Antoinette met at a masked ball in France when they were both very young. She was still the Dauphine or French Crown Princess. The Dauphine found the tall, handsome man very attractive. Years later, she remembered him and introduced him to the whole Court as an ‘old acquaintance.'
Fersen became the envoy of the Swedish King in France and became very good friends with the royal family. They saw each other at Court functions, played cards together, and Fersen became part of the Queen’s circle at the Petit Trianon. Here she escaped from her many problems, including court intrigues and vicious propaganda, by holding concerts, dances and plays, for her friends. Unfortunately, she was linked romantically with some of the men whom she met at the Trianon so her escape did not help. Fersen was not associated with Marie Antoinette in these rumors, perhaps because he had to spend years away doing military service and fulfilling his duties to the Swedish King.
~~Marie-Antoinette’s Attempted Escape~~
After the French Revolution Fersen helped the royal family escape to Varennes. Disguised as a coachman, he drove the carriage on the first leg of their journey. Unfortunately, the family was caught and dragged back to Paris, where they were imprisoned in the Tuileries. The King and Queen awaited trial by the revolutionaries.
~~The Romance of Marie Antoinette and Axel Fersen~~
There is no doubt that Marie Antoinette and Fersen were very attracted to each other. She wrote to him that: “I can tell you that I love you,” and he wrote to his sister that he could not marry because the woman who he wanted to marry was unavailable and called Marie Antoinette ‘perfect’. Some historians, such as Vincent Cronin and Antonia Fraser, suggest that they probably did become lovers at the Tuileries Palace. There is little evidence for this, however. Fersen wrote a French phrase in his diary after their meeting which was his usual phrase for sleeping with a lady. This phrase is apparently smudged so it really provides little evidence for the theory.
~~Fersen’s Death~~
Fersen supported the Swedish King Gustavus IV who was overthrown in a revolution of 1809. When the popular choice for King, Christian August, was poisoned and died, Fersen was believed by many to be responsible. He was murdered horribly by an angry mob in 1810.
A New Hope
At last, I found out "the truth", gained "a new insight" about the world around me, had a "paradigm shift" within me, and found "my purpose" in life. So what exactly do I want? Actually, a meaningful long-term (no, make that eternal) monogamous intimate romantic nonsexual relationship with my future ladylove. Of course, I'm very aware that my chances of finding her are a googol (yes, that's the very highest number in the mathematical language) to one. I've already accepted this grim fact. Yet, I have tremendous faith, and won't give up Hope.
I also realized another thing. The term, "Romantic Friendship" means so much more than "romantic activities" Friends do together. It took me a long while to see this. Yes, romantic friendship is really about intense loyalty and devotion towards one another, taking care of your Friend in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, loving the other person on such a profound level, really putting up with each others' idiosyncrasies, making your Friendship the center of your lives, and that whatever happens, you are both willing to go through it together, no matter what.
So now I can stop mulling over whether to be straight, lesbian or single. Because there is a THIRD WAY of life... There is actually a THIRD CHOICE... That there is ANOTHER WAY... A DIFFERENT and UNIQUE path... one that doesn't cause me to have a guilty conscience or conflict with my deep-rooted beliefs and values.... And yes, that is Boston marriage/romantic friendship. Yes, I'm a Bostonian, and proud of it! Just one problem left: How do I find another Bostonian like me? Or more specifically, how do I find another Gabrielle (like me) in this modern world?? Because this kind of unique relationship is my highest truth, my highest hope, my grandest dream, and my grandest vision.
I also realized another thing. The term, "Romantic Friendship" means so much more than "romantic activities" Friends do together. It took me a long while to see this. Yes, romantic friendship is really about intense loyalty and devotion towards one another, taking care of your Friend in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, loving the other person on such a profound level, really putting up with each others' idiosyncrasies, making your Friendship the center of your lives, and that whatever happens, you are both willing to go through it together, no matter what.
So now I can stop mulling over whether to be straight, lesbian or single. Because there is a THIRD WAY of life... There is actually a THIRD CHOICE... That there is ANOTHER WAY... A DIFFERENT and UNIQUE path... one that doesn't cause me to have a guilty conscience or conflict with my deep-rooted beliefs and values.... And yes, that is Boston marriage/romantic friendship. Yes, I'm a Bostonian, and proud of it! Just one problem left: How do I find another Bostonian like me? Or more specifically, how do I find another Gabrielle (like me) in this modern world?? Because this kind of unique relationship is my highest truth, my highest hope, my grandest dream, and my grandest vision.
Ultimate Dilemma Resolved
Once again, let's revisit my ultimate dilemma (please refer to the original entry at the beginning of my blog titled, "Ultimate Dilemma"). First, when I mentioned I just couldn't be a lesbian (and not exactly attracted to men either), then I'd have to practice celibacy and be alone/single for the rest of my life. That is one error here (remember celibacy just means "abstaining from sex" either for a short period of time or forever). So leading a life of celibacy is one thing, and being alone/single for the rest of your life is another thing. Yes, if people want they can:
Be celibate AND also happen to be single (not sexually active and also has nobody special in his/her life) Picture an old lonely lady with many cats in her apartment. Or picture me!!! Just kidding. I don't (and never) plan to be like this. Unfortunately, I'm in this stage for now.
Be celibate and NOT single (not sexually active, but the person has a committed partnership with someone/significant other) Picture Xena & Gabrielle in later seasons, Idgie & Ruth, Timon & Pumbaa, Bates & Katherine Coman; etc.
Be single and NOT celibate (person is sexually active without commitments) Picture friends with benefits, casual sex, prostitutes & men who have one night-stands.
Be NOT single and NOT celibate (sexually active and in a committed relationship as well) Picture couples, boyfriends/girlfriends & husbands/wives.
Now, I realize I can be celibate and still have a significant other in my life. Who says celibacy = alone/single? Actually, our cultural beliefs and notions imposed that on us. And it doesn't have to be that way.
Secondly, when I mentioned that I can be affectionate and desire to be nonsexually intimate with another woman (i.e. hug, touch, kiss, cuddle, hold hands), but associated that with lesbianism; that was another error here. Yes, while lesbians do this too, so what? Straight people do this also. Yes, I failed to realize that the term, "Romantic Friendship" includes almost all aspects of a modern heterosexual romantic relationship too. What's more, these kind of romantic activities are not reserved exclusively for sexual relationships (straight or gay). So, the "unwritten rule" that a person cannot have deep nonsexual intimacy with a nonsexual life partner is merely a cultural belief/notion that society imposed on us. And it doesn't have to be that way. And I explained this in great detail throughout my blog.
Yet, the most important thing I failed to realize was that people’s interpretation of physical contact became extraordinarily ‘privatized and sexualized,’ so that all types of touching, kissing, and holding were seen as sexual foreplay rather than accepted as ordinary means of communication that carried different meanings in different contexts (i.e. it can be done the motherly way, the friendly way, the greeting-each-other way, the comforting-each-other way, the celebrating-each-other way, the brotherly way, the romantic friendship way, and in the lovers' way which is sexual/erotic).
That's what cemented it for me. I finally realized how stupid I was. I failed to notice that WE ALL (spanning across sexual/affectional orientations of every kind) engage in touching, kissing, cuddling, holding and hugging to varying degrees. Let me ask you this... Why do you really think there are cuddle parties in certain places? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddle_party). Yes, I failed to see that physical embracing is one of the most important ways that humans bond, learn to trust, one of the ways fears are allayed and hope is created; therefore it is a natural human desire to touch, enjoy body contact, to embrace and be embraced.
So this means I can be physically/emotionally affectionate with another woman (in the romantic friendship way). All the touching, kissing, words of endearment, whispering sweet nothings in her ear, cuddling, soul-gazing, hugging and holding (even if it's prolonged) can be done in a non-erotic way; it doesn't have to be seen as "foreplay". Instead, it should be seen as a nonsexual activity that can be enjoyed IN AND OF ITSELF! Who says it has to lead to anything else? It doesn't. Our cultural beliefs and notions imposed that on us (i.e. brainwashing people to believe if you get that intimate, it must therefore turn into a sexual encounter). And it doesn't have to be that way.
Finally, my ultimate dilemma is resolved. I've won The Battlefield of My Mind. The 12yr Rift-Saga of my life is over. It has finally ended. In a sense, my ID (which says, "oh go ahead and be lesbian; doesn't matter if it's a bit weird/wrong at least it is better than no relationship at all") and Ego (which says deep down "you shouldn't adopt lesbianism; even if that means you'll be alone for the rest of your life") are 100% reconciled in The Bitter Suite of My Soul. Now my conscience is at peace. Why? Because my ID & Ego have flushed out from the land of Illusia, and found themseleves sitting on a beautiful beach during sunset.
They were completely shocked. ID, Ego & Superego didn't know where they were located. But, I (the Ultimate-ego) approached them. All three hugged each other tightly. I told them not to be afraid. They stood up, and I explained everything to them. Suddenly, Ego burst out and cried, cried and cried. He was just so grateful not having to keep his son, ID, at bay any longer. Ego was also happy because
For the firt time ever (in Because I don't need to lead the heterosexual lifestyle, neither adopt the homosexual lifestyle NOR be alone for the rest of my life. I found "a whole new door". The funny thing is that I've been focusing too much on the other two doors labeled "straight & lesbian" that I didn't realize a "third door" has been opened. Yes, I've came such a long way. For instance, I went from thinking holding another woman's hand means you're a lesbian (rolls eyes) to knowing that not only I can be "emotionally drawn" to another woman, but also "fall in love" with her and even "marry" her, live together and raise kids. It’s actually possible to do alllll that without being "lesbian!"
Be celibate AND also happen to be single (not sexually active and also has nobody special in his/her life) Picture an old lonely lady with many cats in her apartment. Or picture me!!! Just kidding. I don't (and never) plan to be like this. Unfortunately, I'm in this stage for now.
Be celibate and NOT single (not sexually active, but the person has a committed partnership with someone/significant other) Picture Xena & Gabrielle in later seasons, Idgie & Ruth, Timon & Pumbaa, Bates & Katherine Coman; etc.
Be single and NOT celibate (person is sexually active without commitments) Picture friends with benefits, casual sex, prostitutes & men who have one night-stands.
Be NOT single and NOT celibate (sexually active and in a committed relationship as well) Picture couples, boyfriends/girlfriends & husbands/wives.
Now, I realize I can be celibate and still have a significant other in my life. Who says celibacy = alone/single? Actually, our cultural beliefs and notions imposed that on us. And it doesn't have to be that way.
Secondly, when I mentioned that I can be affectionate and desire to be nonsexually intimate with another woman (i.e. hug, touch, kiss, cuddle, hold hands), but associated that with lesbianism; that was another error here. Yes, while lesbians do this too, so what? Straight people do this also. Yes, I failed to realize that the term, "Romantic Friendship" includes almost all aspects of a modern heterosexual romantic relationship too. What's more, these kind of romantic activities are not reserved exclusively for sexual relationships (straight or gay). So, the "unwritten rule" that a person cannot have deep nonsexual intimacy with a nonsexual life partner is merely a cultural belief/notion that society imposed on us. And it doesn't have to be that way. And I explained this in great detail throughout my blog.
Yet, the most important thing I failed to realize was that people’s interpretation of physical contact became extraordinarily ‘privatized and sexualized,’ so that all types of touching, kissing, and holding were seen as sexual foreplay rather than accepted as ordinary means of communication that carried different meanings in different contexts (i.e. it can be done the motherly way, the friendly way, the greeting-each-other way, the comforting-each-other way, the celebrating-each-other way, the brotherly way, the romantic friendship way, and in the lovers' way which is sexual/erotic).
That's what cemented it for me. I finally realized how stupid I was. I failed to notice that WE ALL (spanning across sexual/affectional orientations of every kind) engage in touching, kissing, cuddling, holding and hugging to varying degrees. Let me ask you this... Why do you really think there are cuddle parties in certain places? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddle_party). Yes, I failed to see that physical embracing is one of the most important ways that humans bond, learn to trust, one of the ways fears are allayed and hope is created; therefore it is a natural human desire to touch, enjoy body contact, to embrace and be embraced.
So this means I can be physically/emotionally affectionate with another woman (in the romantic friendship way). All the touching, kissing, words of endearment, whispering sweet nothings in her ear, cuddling, soul-gazing, hugging and holding (even if it's prolonged) can be done in a non-erotic way; it doesn't have to be seen as "foreplay". Instead, it should be seen as a nonsexual activity that can be enjoyed IN AND OF ITSELF! Who says it has to lead to anything else? It doesn't. Our cultural beliefs and notions imposed that on us (i.e. brainwashing people to believe if you get that intimate, it must therefore turn into a sexual encounter). And it doesn't have to be that way.
Finally, my ultimate dilemma is resolved. I've won The Battlefield of My Mind. The 12yr Rift-Saga of my life is over. It has finally ended. In a sense, my ID (which says, "oh go ahead and be lesbian; doesn't matter if it's a bit weird/wrong at least it is better than no relationship at all") and Ego (which says deep down "you shouldn't adopt lesbianism; even if that means you'll be alone for the rest of your life") are 100% reconciled in The Bitter Suite of My Soul. Now my conscience is at peace. Why? Because my ID & Ego have flushed out from the land of Illusia, and found themseleves sitting on a beautiful beach during sunset.
They were completely shocked. ID, Ego & Superego didn't know where they were located. But, I (the Ultimate-ego) approached them. All three hugged each other tightly. I told them not to be afraid. They stood up, and I explained everything to them. Suddenly, Ego burst out and cried, cried and cried. He was just so grateful not having to keep his son, ID, at bay any longer. Ego was also happy because
For the firt time ever (in Because I don't need to lead the heterosexual lifestyle, neither adopt the homosexual lifestyle NOR be alone for the rest of my life. I found "a whole new door". The funny thing is that I've been focusing too much on the other two doors labeled "straight & lesbian" that I didn't realize a "third door" has been opened. Yes, I've came such a long way. For instance, I went from thinking holding another woman's hand means you're a lesbian (rolls eyes) to knowing that not only I can be "emotionally drawn" to another woman, but also "fall in love" with her and even "marry" her, live together and raise kids. It’s actually possible to do alllll that without being "lesbian!"
A Small (And Extremely Rare) Online Community
Another thing, I've read all about "asexual lesbians." In fact, there are approximately 250 documented cases of this in the world. And it continues to grow everyday. But, when I look at the term, I go eh??? I laugh out loud because I do "behave exactly" like an asexual lesbian. It is also PRETTY CLOSE to describing who I am. But, not quite hitting the target (it's about one inch away from bullseye). Ya know what I mean? When I saw it, I cocked my head to the side and said, "Wow, not so bad!" I even became a member in a small online community at http://z4.invisionfree.com/Asexual_Lesbians/index.php
The reason I joined? **Chuckles** My life is a "perfect imitation" of an asexual lesbian. After all, I never had sex nor oral sex, and I am interested in women (not men). I like girls; I constantly talk to them, flirt in a subtle way, and hang out with them whenever I can. To the best of my knowledge, all my typical female friends (in real-life) that I have happen to be straight. But hey, you never know. **Winks** Alas, a "Gabrielle" or a "Xena" may be in the midst somewhere. For your information, no, I never kissed or held hands with a girl before. But, I instinctively know I am this way. And I'm still a hopeless romantic; a Gabrielle still searching for my Xena.
However, I always thought this label was a misnomer. Why do you think I never use it in my blog/journal? **Rolls eyes** Asexual lesbian? First of all, I'm not an asexual. That's totally crazy. I do actually have a sex drive (sexuality). It is just not directed at anyone in particular. But, yes, I do get horny and occasionally masturbate. To all of those readers (especially my regular followers) who are dying to know; yes I've had intense clitoral orgasms. Yeah, it feels great, but I'm not into this whole 'sex thing.' Like in the insane and obsessed media. Not really. Sure, it's interesting, but it is not what's on my mind.
Second of all, I'm not a lesbian (at least not in the biblical sense). I never had engaged in any kind of homosexual acts in my entire life. The reason I identify with "lesbianism" is because I have emotional & romantic attractions to women only. It has always been this way my whole life. But, I didn't know what "it meant" until I learned of the terms Romantic Friendship and Boston Marriage (back in 2007).
Nevertheless, asexual lesbianism (the terminology itself) was a phrase I grew to know and love. In a very personal way. Yes, I know, I know, I know, I'm not an asexual NOR a lesbian. But, put two and two together (like 1 + 1 = 2), and the whole weird concept finally MAKES PERFECT SENSE to me! Finding that rare website was like finding my 'long-lost tribe' or my own 'secret garden.' I was sooooo relieved that there were other women who were like me out there. That I wasn't going crazy. That I wasn't 'all alone' in this world (stuck with my own unique ideas). Because there are actual hundreds of people scattered worldwide who share my similar (if not nearly identical) feelings.
But no, for your information, I don't think of myself in that way. I identify myself with the relationship between Xena & Gabrielle (the love they shared). Totally nameless. You see, I feel my love towards women (that I like romantically) really does go beyond words/categories/labels. But, yes, if you want to get "more concrete" then think of me as an "asexual lesbian." I don't mind at all. However, the terms (and also being a) homo-romantic & homo-emotional, sound wayyyyy better to my ears and to my lifestyle in general.
[draft stage process not finsihed]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, I used to be straight (I didn't know any better). It all happened literally seven years ago. Practically ancient history. It was during a time I didn't know who I was (deep down). And going 'out with guys' was the normal thing to do. I once had a boyfriend. His name was Brian. He was a good fellow, and I liked him very much. Again, we never had sex nor oral sex. We just made out and held hands. Our actual relationship wasn't even serious. We only saw each other on the weekends (we went to vastly different high schools), and our relationship lasted A MERE seven months. It was nice, okay and went smoothly. I basically had a wonderful time! No problems, dramas or traumas. He treated me with the uttermost respect. Brian was a rare (and sweet) gentleman indeed. We broke up because we had to go to universities in different states. But, THE REAL truth is, we weren't genuinely in love in the first place. Still, we remained good friends long afterwards. We eventually lost touch three years ago. I never regretted any of this. Not one bit. It was quite an enjoyable and (most importantly) a rich learning experience! Of course, I'm totally over him 100%, but I'll always keep these fond memories. You see, obviously I had to know "who I was not" in order to know "who I am." It is small wonder then, he was my EARLIEST, FIRST, ONLY, and LAST boyfriend.
Affectional Orientation
Affectional orientation is an alternative term for sexual orientation. It is based on the perspective that one's orientation is not limited to sexuality but also to one's affectionality. To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, sexual attraction being only a part of a larger dynamic.
The term is also used by some who consider themselves asexual and only feel emotional attraction to describe the gender or genders they are romantically attracted to. The terms used for different affectional orientations are typically the same as those which are used for sexual orientations: homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual (though actually "homoromantic", "biromantic" and "heteroromantic" are not unknown, if uncommon).
Lately, the aforementioned terms are considered to reduce a whole category of desires and emotions, power and connection, to sex.
There are also those who hold the view that their orientation is defined by whom one has affection towards and that their sexual attraction is based on affection for another human being's personal qualities rather than their gender or appearance, sex and gender playing no part in the attraction. This does not necessarily require either person to fall in love but is still based on a personal affection.
One might now consider the phrase, "conditional sexual attraction" for asexuals, as opposed to "primary sexual attraction" used by all "sexual" people, though not all would agree with this terminology, as some asexuals may be attracted to physical characteristics as well as or instead of non physical ones.
I thought the various definitions were great. According to me, I am strictly a 100% homoromantic/homoemotional only, of course. For me, these two (2) "newly discovered" terminologies are totally synonymous to Romantic Friendship too. I am not sexually attracted to women (don't want to nor care to engage in sex/lust or erotica activities with them); but I am very much physically attracted to them (as in wanting to be physically close to her, all the cuddling, kissing, constant nonsexual intimate touching; etc). What I am attracted to (specifically) is their soft skin, silky hair, smooth hands, gentle arms, pretty face, and nice lips. I don't care for "sexy boobs", "big butts", and "wet vaginas" never cross my mind (when I look at ladies). So, how can I be sexually attracted to them?? That's ridiculous. I am physically attracted to them; NOT SEXUALLY attracted. There is a particular distinction between the two terms. If anything, my so-called "sexual attraction" towards women are based on their inner qualities, personalities and characteristic traits (physical and also emotional aspects). FYI, I prefer feminine looks with a light touch of butchness in them **winks**
Anyway, if I were sexually attracted to chicks (for real), I would have pics of naked females all over my room (or at least naked pictures of them secretly hidden under my bed). But, this is NOT THE CASE. For some reason, I only seem to want to put up photos of fully-clothed and normal looking pretty women (hanging on my wall); mostly showing their faces and upper torsos. Among the posters I have (in my own bedroom) are of Allison Mack, Amy Jo Johnson, Sally Field, Sandra Bullock, Mariska Hargitay, Helen Hunt, Caroline Rhea, Carrie Fisher, Sasha Cohen, Dana Torres, Diane Lane, Deanne Bray, Demi Moore, Donna, Gillian Anderson, Patty Duke, Anne Bancroft, Leelee Sobieski, Glenn Close, Amanda Laura Bynes, Mary Stuart Masterson, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lucy Lawless and Renee O'Connor (duh, of course). My collection of pretty ladies will not be complete without these two gals. And yes, I do have romantic crushes on all 25 of them (to varying degrees).
I mean, having pretty shapes/figures are nice to look at. And I DO look at them (sometimes even stare). I'm not shy to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admiring; to gaze and wonder at the overall beauty of the female body. It is a work of art, indeed!
The term is also used by some who consider themselves asexual and only feel emotional attraction to describe the gender or genders they are romantically attracted to. The terms used for different affectional orientations are typically the same as those which are used for sexual orientations: homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual (though actually "homoromantic", "biromantic" and "heteroromantic" are not unknown, if uncommon).
Lately, the aforementioned terms are considered to reduce a whole category of desires and emotions, power and connection, to sex.
There are also those who hold the view that their orientation is defined by whom one has affection towards and that their sexual attraction is based on affection for another human being's personal qualities rather than their gender or appearance, sex and gender playing no part in the attraction. This does not necessarily require either person to fall in love but is still based on a personal affection.
One might now consider the phrase, "conditional sexual attraction" for asexuals, as opposed to "primary sexual attraction" used by all "sexual" people, though not all would agree with this terminology, as some asexuals may be attracted to physical characteristics as well as or instead of non physical ones.
I thought the various definitions were great. According to me, I am strictly a 100% homoromantic/homoemotional only, of course. For me, these two (2) "newly discovered" terminologies are totally synonymous to Romantic Friendship too. I am not sexually attracted to women (don't want to nor care to engage in sex/lust or erotica activities with them); but I am very much physically attracted to them (as in wanting to be physically close to her, all the cuddling, kissing, constant nonsexual intimate touching; etc). What I am attracted to (specifically) is their soft skin, silky hair, smooth hands, gentle arms, pretty face, and nice lips. I don't care for "sexy boobs", "big butts", and "wet vaginas" never cross my mind (when I look at ladies). So, how can I be sexually attracted to them?? That's ridiculous. I am physically attracted to them; NOT SEXUALLY attracted. There is a particular distinction between the two terms. If anything, my so-called "sexual attraction" towards women are based on their inner qualities, personalities and characteristic traits (physical and also emotional aspects). FYI, I prefer feminine looks with a light touch of butchness in them **winks**
Anyway, if I were sexually attracted to chicks (for real), I would have pics of naked females all over my room (or at least naked pictures of them secretly hidden under my bed). But, this is NOT THE CASE. For some reason, I only seem to want to put up photos of fully-clothed and normal looking pretty women (hanging on my wall); mostly showing their faces and upper torsos. Among the posters I have (in my own bedroom) are of Allison Mack, Amy Jo Johnson, Sally Field, Sandra Bullock, Mariska Hargitay, Helen Hunt, Caroline Rhea, Carrie Fisher, Sasha Cohen, Dana Torres, Diane Lane, Deanne Bray, Demi Moore, Donna, Gillian Anderson, Patty Duke, Anne Bancroft, Leelee Sobieski, Glenn Close, Amanda Laura Bynes, Mary Stuart Masterson, Jamie Lee Curtis, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lucy Lawless and Renee O'Connor (duh, of course). My collection of pretty ladies will not be complete without these two gals. And yes, I do have romantic crushes on all 25 of them (to varying degrees).
I mean, having pretty shapes/figures are nice to look at. And I DO look at them (sometimes even stare). I'm not shy to admit this. There is nothing wrong with admiring; to gaze and wonder at the overall beauty of the female body. It is a work of art, indeed!
Revelations II: Paradigm Shift
All of a sudden, I had a huge paradigm shift within me. Now, I know what it really means to be a homosexual. The real definition of homosexuality is not today’s definition (false), but from thousands of years ago (the true one). For instance, it doesn't mean a guy standing in a certain body posture, speaking in a high-pitched tone, feminine qualities and movements of hands, a guy saying “pink” is his favorite color, likes to play with dolls or that his job is a florist and/or interior decorator or that he loves to dance, cuddle or kiss another guy, sleep with the guy in the same bed (because that can be done nonsexually too), having emotional and/or romantic attractions, send love letters and thoughtful poems, taking baths or two guys living together for life. All that is NOT HOMOSEXUAL AND NOT "GAY".
The same goes for women. For instance, it doesn't mean a girl standing in a certain body posture, speaking in a lower-pitched tone, masculine qualities and movements of their hands, a girl saying “blue” is her favorite color, likes to play with action figures or that her job is in construction work or that she loves to dance, cuddle or kiss another girl, sleep with the girl in the same bed (because that can be done nonsexually too), having emotional and/or romantic attractions, send love letters and thoughtful poems, taking baths or two women living together for life. All that is NOT HOMOSEXUAL AND NOT "LESBIAN".
In the bible, God said being a homosexual SPECIFICALLY means a man HAVING SEX with another man (same rule applies to women). That IS ALL God focused on, period. If you read the bible closely, you would know. Yes, today’s definition of “homosexuality” is totally messed up and because of this, everyone became very confused. They had decided to ignore God’s true definition of homosexuality from ancient times (which includes sex/lust only), and make up their very own. As a result, today's "updated version" defining homosexuality (after thousands of years later) has changed so much that people demanded a "new label" to incorporate all these (false) "additional features" of homosexuality and named it "Gay" and "Lesbian". I now realize these two "modern phrases" are invalid in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, these so-called terms were coined less than two hundred years ago (in the year 1890 to be exact; and wasn't even put to "real" usage until approximately the 1970's to mean "something else"). So we have to remember, once again, that only God (and Jesus Christ) Himself had strictly coined the term "Homosexuality." Indeed, that is THE ONLY term He uses, period.
But, mankind had coined the term "Gay." Because of this as a result, "gayness and lesbianism" has extended to many, many other things including touching, kissing, holding, certain body movements, voice tones, style of clothing/attire, hobbies, who you live with, jobs and occupations, and even slang phrases. For example, Jack says to Jill, "The lifeguard told us to swim in shallow waters today because of the red flag. I think its a good idea; so I'm only going up to my knees." Jill sarcastically responds back saying, "Oh, don't be sooooo gay!" Jack therefore feels unnecessarily threatened, hurt and insecure (over nothing). Obviously, in this context, "gay" actually just means being "uncool/nerdy." Sadly, people have forgotten what “gay” truly means, and that’s a shame!
Homosexuality: Once originally an action verb, has now become [for some weird reason] further extended to a noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, irregular verb, preposition, conjunction, interjection, superlative, and even a predicate nominative. "Gay" is also used in informal conversations (as illustrated above) which, sadly, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. So yes in other words, unfortunately (and ironically), we are severely limiting ourselves; not God. In fact, I bet He is looking down at us and laughing Himself silly.
There is another thing I want to discuss... It now makes perfect sense why God condemns male homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD has absolutely no problem with same-sex love, intimacy and commitment. For instance, two men openly expressed their intense love for each other (saying that their "love" even surpasses that of women!!), kissed, wept together, and on top of all that, the men declared their soulmate bond!! (remember the David-Jonathan story). God even wanted that recorded in the bible and said nothing negative about this. It also makes perfect sense why God condemns female homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD has absolutely no problem with two women making life vows to each other (or a very serious commitment), even using verses similar in traditional weddings!! (remember the Naomi-Ruth story). In fact, these two events were portrayed in a very positive light. It also makes perfect sense why God condemns homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD is absolutely silent about same-sex marriages (you can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, and not see even a single same-sex marriage mentioned). And guess what?? That also goes for almost virtually everything else. But, on here, I'll list just the basics:
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex hand holding.
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex kissing.
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex touching.
In other words, you can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding romantic same-sex activities (of virtually all kinds; you name it). It doesn't even bother Him, and He is perfectly fine with it. How can this be? Let me explain. First of all, God knows perfectly well that touching/hand-holding/kissing between angels, humans or other forms of intelligent life in the universe are ordinary means of communication (as old as time) that can be carried out in different meanings in different contexts (not just only in the sexual dimension). That is the key phrase here. In DIFFERENT MEANINGS within DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. So therefore, same-sex touching, kissing & hand-holding doesn't always necessarily mean sexual.
Second of all, God knows perfectly well that a person can "fall in love" with another person of the same gender (nonsexually). Yes, God is very aware of the fact there are different kinds of love, and wants us to know that romantic love need not be accompanied by erotic love.
There is a difference between:
1.) platonic love (simply loving & affectionate feelings only)
2.) erotic love (mostly characterized by sex, lust & erotica)
3.) erotic romantic love (romantic loving/affectionate feelings plus sex, lust/erotica)
4.) platonic romantic love (romantic loving and affectionate feelings without sex/lust/erotica)
Number (4) is the "love" that society has long forgotten. And that is called romantic friendship. Although the actual phrase looks like an oxymoron, it is actually possible to have platonic & romantic feelings simultaneously. Yes, I can actually fall in love with another woman (and love her very passionately), the same as with a boyfriend or husband, just without the "sex/lust/erotica” element. In a sense, (since the sex is left out of the equation) it’d give us more “space and room”, in making our romantic love/intimate Friendship much stronger and more intense. In fact, my love for her will very easily surpass the love of men (even though it isn’t sexual). Unfortunately this concept is very hard to understand... for most people. Now, you can see why God does not forbid (romantic) same-sex love (because "falling in love" can be nonerotic, and that a 'passionate love' doesn't always necessarily mean 'sexual love').
Third of all, God does not forbid same-sex marriages and lifelong same-sex unions. In fact, in the bible He loves it and blesses those who practice this (rare) third way of life. I'm also an extremely strong advocate and supporter of same-sex marriages/unions (without the sexual aspect), and I believe it should be legally recognized and respected very much; in exactly the same way like traditional marriages are. I'll use women as an example (because this rare phenomenon is much more common with them). Remember, a woman can actually "marry" another woman, put her "first" (as a significant other), do all the stuff together as a couple (shop, bathe, eat and sleep together, even adopt and raise children if they wanted), also nurture each other with all the care and affection, etc (i.e. Boston marriages) All this can be done nonsexually, and women have done this in the past many times. This very same thing can apply to men as well. God does not forbid this. As long as the same-sex couple are not sexually involved (and not lusting after one another), NOTHING IS WRONG with this kind of lifestyle in God's eyes. So what I'm trying to say is that God does not forbid same-sex marriages and lifelong same-sex unions. But, He does forbid homosexuality. So we can arrive at the logical conclusion that He also forbids "same-sex HOMOSEXUAL marriages and lifelong same-sex HOMOSEXUAL unions." There is a particular (and huge) distinction between the two.
Lastly, I also experienced another important paradigm shift regarding orientations. Since there is nothing sexual about romantic friendships/Boston marriages, it doesn't belong in the sexual orientation category. But still, this nonsexual institution is too big and important; it needs some kind of a category to fall into. And there is one. In fact, it belongs in the "affectional orientation" category. Yes, that's where I belong. This is a 'real term', I didn't make this up. It is based on the perspective that one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with (emotionally and romantically), sex not really playing a part in the attraction. Now I realize orientations are not just limited to the "sexual" category, and that there are actually TWO different kinds of orientations; not just one.
As you can see, Romantic Friendship & Boston Marriage are in perfect accordance (and in perfect harmony) with biblical scriptures!
The same goes for women. For instance, it doesn't mean a girl standing in a certain body posture, speaking in a lower-pitched tone, masculine qualities and movements of their hands, a girl saying “blue” is her favorite color, likes to play with action figures or that her job is in construction work or that she loves to dance, cuddle or kiss another girl, sleep with the girl in the same bed (because that can be done nonsexually too), having emotional and/or romantic attractions, send love letters and thoughtful poems, taking baths or two women living together for life. All that is NOT HOMOSEXUAL AND NOT "LESBIAN".
In the bible, God said being a homosexual SPECIFICALLY means a man HAVING SEX with another man (same rule applies to women). That IS ALL God focused on, period. If you read the bible closely, you would know. Yes, today’s definition of “homosexuality” is totally messed up and because of this, everyone became very confused. They had decided to ignore God’s true definition of homosexuality from ancient times (which includes sex/lust only), and make up their very own. As a result, today's "updated version" defining homosexuality (after thousands of years later) has changed so much that people demanded a "new label" to incorporate all these (false) "additional features" of homosexuality and named it "Gay" and "Lesbian". I now realize these two "modern phrases" are invalid in the eyes of the Lord. In fact, these so-called terms were coined less than two hundred years ago (in the year 1890 to be exact; and wasn't even put to "real" usage until approximately the 1970's to mean "something else"). So we have to remember, once again, that only God (and Jesus Christ) Himself had strictly coined the term "Homosexuality." Indeed, that is THE ONLY term He uses, period.
But, mankind had coined the term "Gay." Because of this as a result, "gayness and lesbianism" has extended to many, many other things including touching, kissing, holding, certain body movements, voice tones, style of clothing/attire, hobbies, who you live with, jobs and occupations, and even slang phrases. For example, Jack says to Jill, "The lifeguard told us to swim in shallow waters today because of the red flag. I think its a good idea; so I'm only going up to my knees." Jill sarcastically responds back saying, "Oh, don't be sooooo gay!" Jack therefore feels unnecessarily threatened, hurt and insecure (over nothing). Obviously, in this context, "gay" actually just means being "uncool/nerdy." Sadly, people have forgotten what “gay” truly means, and that’s a shame!
Homosexuality: Once originally an action verb, has now become [for some weird reason] further extended to a noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, irregular verb, preposition, conjunction, interjection, superlative, and even a predicate nominative. "Gay" is also used in informal conversations (as illustrated above) which, sadly, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. So yes in other words, unfortunately (and ironically), we are severely limiting ourselves; not God. In fact, I bet He is looking down at us and laughing Himself silly.
There is another thing I want to discuss... It now makes perfect sense why God condemns male homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD has absolutely no problem with same-sex love, intimacy and commitment. For instance, two men openly expressed their intense love for each other (saying that their "love" even surpasses that of women!!), kissed, wept together, and on top of all that, the men declared their soulmate bond!! (remember the David-Jonathan story). God even wanted that recorded in the bible and said nothing negative about this. It also makes perfect sense why God condemns female homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD has absolutely no problem with two women making life vows to each other (or a very serious commitment), even using verses similar in traditional weddings!! (remember the Naomi-Ruth story). In fact, these two events were portrayed in a very positive light. It also makes perfect sense why God condemns homosexuality, but THIS VERY SAME GOD is absolutely silent about same-sex marriages (you can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, and not see even a single same-sex marriage mentioned). And guess what?? That also goes for almost virtually everything else. But, on here, I'll list just the basics:
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex hand holding.
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex kissing.
You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding same-sex touching.
In other words, you can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation (in the bible), and not see any rule whatsoever forbidding romantic same-sex activities (of virtually all kinds; you name it). It doesn't even bother Him, and He is perfectly fine with it. How can this be? Let me explain. First of all, God knows perfectly well that touching/hand-holding/kissing between angels, humans or other forms of intelligent life in the universe are ordinary means of communication (as old as time) that can be carried out in different meanings in different contexts (not just only in the sexual dimension). That is the key phrase here. In DIFFERENT MEANINGS within DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. So therefore, same-sex touching, kissing & hand-holding doesn't always necessarily mean sexual.
Second of all, God knows perfectly well that a person can "fall in love" with another person of the same gender (nonsexually). Yes, God is very aware of the fact there are different kinds of love, and wants us to know that romantic love need not be accompanied by erotic love.
There is a difference between:
1.) platonic love (simply loving & affectionate feelings only)
2.) erotic love (mostly characterized by sex, lust & erotica)
3.) erotic romantic love (romantic loving/affectionate feelings plus sex, lust/erotica)
4.) platonic romantic love (romantic loving and affectionate feelings without sex/lust/erotica)
Number (4) is the "love" that society has long forgotten. And that is called romantic friendship. Although the actual phrase looks like an oxymoron, it is actually possible to have platonic & romantic feelings simultaneously. Yes, I can actually fall in love with another woman (and love her very passionately), the same as with a boyfriend or husband, just without the "sex/lust/erotica” element. In a sense, (since the sex is left out of the equation) it’d give us more “space and room”, in making our romantic love/intimate Friendship much stronger and more intense. In fact, my love for her will very easily surpass the love of men (even though it isn’t sexual). Unfortunately this concept is very hard to understand... for most people. Now, you can see why God does not forbid (romantic) same-sex love (because "falling in love" can be nonerotic, and that a 'passionate love' doesn't always necessarily mean 'sexual love').
Third of all, God does not forbid same-sex marriages and lifelong same-sex unions. In fact, in the bible He loves it and blesses those who practice this (rare) third way of life. I'm also an extremely strong advocate and supporter of same-sex marriages/unions (without the sexual aspect), and I believe it should be legally recognized and respected very much; in exactly the same way like traditional marriages are. I'll use women as an example (because this rare phenomenon is much more common with them). Remember, a woman can actually "marry" another woman, put her "first" (as a significant other), do all the stuff together as a couple (shop, bathe, eat and sleep together, even adopt and raise children if they wanted), also nurture each other with all the care and affection, etc (i.e. Boston marriages) All this can be done nonsexually, and women have done this in the past many times. This very same thing can apply to men as well. God does not forbid this. As long as the same-sex couple are not sexually involved (and not lusting after one another), NOTHING IS WRONG with this kind of lifestyle in God's eyes. So what I'm trying to say is that God does not forbid same-sex marriages and lifelong same-sex unions. But, He does forbid homosexuality. So we can arrive at the logical conclusion that He also forbids "same-sex HOMOSEXUAL marriages and lifelong same-sex HOMOSEXUAL unions." There is a particular (and huge) distinction between the two.
Lastly, I also experienced another important paradigm shift regarding orientations. Since there is nothing sexual about romantic friendships/Boston marriages, it doesn't belong in the sexual orientation category. But still, this nonsexual institution is too big and important; it needs some kind of a category to fall into. And there is one. In fact, it belongs in the "affectional orientation" category. Yes, that's where I belong. This is a 'real term', I didn't make this up. It is based on the perspective that one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with (emotionally and romantically), sex not really playing a part in the attraction. Now I realize orientations are not just limited to the "sexual" category, and that there are actually TWO different kinds of orientations; not just one.
As you can see, Romantic Friendship & Boston Marriage are in perfect accordance (and in perfect harmony) with biblical scriptures!
Revelations I: The Truth
One day, I was reading the bible and decided to look again at the part what God said about homosexuality (and please pay attention to the words I underlined). Before I begin, I must make it clear that my purpose is NOT to condemn or judge homosexuals (only God can do that). My purpose is in finding out what it REALLY MEANS to be a homosexual (gay/lesbian), and WHAT EXACTLY is wrong about it. After reading the bible, and already knowing about romantic friendships and Boston marriages, everything started to fall into place. It made perfect sense. In fact, that is all God had to say. His words became crystal clear to me. I knew THE TRUTH.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind." Of course, this goes both ways. God clearly forbids not only gay sex, but lesbian sex as well. And when we see the word "lie", it doesn't mean to simply lie with the same gender in bed side by side (because that can be done nonsexually; mothers and daughters do it, brothers and sisters do it, friends do it, and even close romantic friends do it). The word "lie" mentioned in the bible is not to be used in a literal sense. It actually means to "lie sexually with", "have sex with", etc.
In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections." The term "vile" literally means showing affection in an erotic and sexual sense, and that it is a dishonor, a disgrace and shameful.
"For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another." Obviously, you can see that "leaving the natural use" means that instead of the person having sex with the opposite sex, they had sex with the same-sex individual, which is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
"Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” What is that error exactly? A very simple and natural, logical error. Their bodies (in a sexual way) automatically contradict and repel each other or more specifically, their genitals. For example, the male sexual organ. Obviously, a penis isn't designed to go inside an anus of another male. Not only it is usually uncomfortable (that is why gays sometimes put lots of lube), there is also a common risk of "tearing and breaking" of anal tissue. So, you can clearly see the error which was meet. Also, do you remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual (gay/lesbian), is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! Thus, homosexuality has no scientific or anatomical basis for existence.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word for “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, BUT it is actually a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. As you can see, the word "effeminate" does not mean a man acting in a feminine (or girlish) way. It has nothing to do with a man having female qualities.
Now, let's look at the phrase: “abusers of themselves with mankind”, which completely summarizes the whole thing. It not only refers to homosexuality, but also to fornicators, adulterers, rapists, molesters, prostitutes, bestiality, incest, idolaters, liars, thieves, murderers, covetous, sloth (excessive laziness), gluttony, drunkards, revilers (saying very hurtful things to someone or hate speech), swindlers and extortioners. And it also refers to those who have pride (thinking too highly of oneself), greed (strong emotional attachments to worldly possessions), lust, wrath, envy, extravagance (frequent purchase of luxury goods), and vainglory (unjustified boasting).
Now, you must be asking me: "What is the point you're trying to make? That homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of God?" No, this blog entry has nothing to do with whether gays go to heaven or hell.
Again, the point I'm trying to make is figuring out what "homosexual" truly means, and what very, very specifically God forbids regarding homosexuals. Look at the words I underlined.... Don't you see? What is the constant theme here? SEX, LUST, and EROTICA. What is God saying over and over again about homosexuality? What exactly does God forbid? SEX (in the broad sense of the word). While He doesn't exactly forbid lust/erotica, He dislikes it very much, and it is for good reason. You see, when a person starts to lust after the same-sex and have erotic thoughts about him/her, the person is more likely than ever to act on it. So lust/erotica isn't a very smart thing. Remember this... The "thought" is the parent of the "action". That's why God strongly discourages it.
In short, the ONLY THING God forbids is SEX. I remember repeating this line many times in my head. I went from, "Oh, so that what's wrong about gays/lesbians", to "That's the ONLY THING WRONG about homosexuals!?" Oh, wow... I was in a state of complete shock. Because I just realized "sex" or more specifically "genital sex" is actually a very small part of the whole love equation stuff (whether you're straight or gay). Yes, believe it or not! The only thing God forbids about homosexuality is sex. In that moment, THE TRUTH has set me free!
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind." Of course, this goes both ways. God clearly forbids not only gay sex, but lesbian sex as well. And when we see the word "lie", it doesn't mean to simply lie with the same gender in bed side by side (because that can be done nonsexually; mothers and daughters do it, brothers and sisters do it, friends do it, and even close romantic friends do it). The word "lie" mentioned in the bible is not to be used in a literal sense. It actually means to "lie sexually with", "have sex with", etc.
In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections." The term "vile" literally means showing affection in an erotic and sexual sense, and that it is a dishonor, a disgrace and shameful.
"For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another." Obviously, you can see that "leaving the natural use" means that instead of the person having sex with the opposite sex, they had sex with the same-sex individual, which is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
"Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” What is that error exactly? A very simple and natural, logical error. Their bodies (in a sexual way) automatically contradict and repel each other or more specifically, their genitals. For example, the male sexual organ. Obviously, a penis isn't designed to go inside an anus of another male. Not only it is usually uncomfortable (that is why gays sometimes put lots of lube), there is also a common risk of "tearing and breaking" of anal tissue. So, you can clearly see the error which was meet. Also, do you remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual (gay/lesbian), is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! Thus, homosexuality has no scientific or anatomical basis for existence.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word for “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, BUT it is actually a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. As you can see, the word "effeminate" does not mean a man acting in a feminine (or girlish) way. It has nothing to do with a man having female qualities.
Now, let's look at the phrase: “abusers of themselves with mankind”, which completely summarizes the whole thing. It not only refers to homosexuality, but also to fornicators, adulterers, rapists, molesters, prostitutes, bestiality, incest, idolaters, liars, thieves, murderers, covetous, sloth (excessive laziness), gluttony, drunkards, revilers (saying very hurtful things to someone or hate speech), swindlers and extortioners. And it also refers to those who have pride (thinking too highly of oneself), greed (strong emotional attachments to worldly possessions), lust, wrath, envy, extravagance (frequent purchase of luxury goods), and vainglory (unjustified boasting).
Now, you must be asking me: "What is the point you're trying to make? That homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of God?" No, this blog entry has nothing to do with whether gays go to heaven or hell.
Again, the point I'm trying to make is figuring out what "homosexual" truly means, and what very, very specifically God forbids regarding homosexuals. Look at the words I underlined.... Don't you see? What is the constant theme here? SEX, LUST, and EROTICA. What is God saying over and over again about homosexuality? What exactly does God forbid? SEX (in the broad sense of the word). While He doesn't exactly forbid lust/erotica, He dislikes it very much, and it is for good reason. You see, when a person starts to lust after the same-sex and have erotic thoughts about him/her, the person is more likely than ever to act on it. So lust/erotica isn't a very smart thing. Remember this... The "thought" is the parent of the "action". That's why God strongly discourages it.
In short, the ONLY THING God forbids is SEX. I remember repeating this line many times in my head. I went from, "Oh, so that what's wrong about gays/lesbians", to "That's the ONLY THING WRONG about homosexuals!?" Oh, wow... I was in a state of complete shock. Because I just realized "sex" or more specifically "genital sex" is actually a very small part of the whole love equation stuff (whether you're straight or gay). Yes, believe it or not! The only thing God forbids about homosexuality is sex. In that moment, THE TRUTH has set me free!
The Bostonians' Ten Commandments
Moving on, what do you call people who are in Boston marriages? I've tried looking everywhere for the word, but realized it doesn't exist. That is why I have invented a term for those who practice this third way of life. They are called the "Bostonians." Yes, these people are "straight" in a sense; they just don't practice the lifestyle which includes a husband, 2.5 kids and a white picket fence (you get the idea). Anyway, in order to be a true Bostonian (whether you are in an artistic collaboration, business partnership, romantic friendship or choosing all three), you ladies both must follow the Bostonians' Ten Commandments which are:
Thou Shall Not Have:
1.) Vaginal Sex (i.e. with dildos)
2.) Oral Sex
3.) Anal Sex
4.) Dry Sex
5.) Cyber Sex
6.) Manual Sex
7.) Mutual Masturbation
8.) French/Tongue Kissing
9.) Touching Of Sexual Body Parts
10.) Lustful Thoughts About Each Other
(Laughs) I know, a bit silly but kind of humorous. Anyway, let's talk about the ninth rule, "thou shall not have touching of sexual body parts." There are exceptions in certain situations. For example, what if your significant other becomes permanently disabled (God forbid) and cannot wash herself "up and down there?" You could do it in the same manner as a home nurse would. There is nothing wrong with that. Another one is the buttocks. Of course, you can slap/grab each other's butts in a playful way. Football players do it, friends do it. So what I mean is not touching the buttocks in a sexual manner. I'm just saying these things in case somebody brings up those "what if" questions, trying to challenge my ideas.
There is another thing I want to discuss. It may look like I am really introducing a very "boring" and "dull" third way of life. You may think there isn't much you can do with each other nonsexually, only envisioning a life of simply holding hands and kissing. Not true! That is because you are blocking yourself from seeing it. This is a medical (and psychological) condition known as "narrow tunnel vision."
For instance, you can have intimate tight bear hugs, hold hands with fingers intertwined, run your fingers through each other's hair, slow dance to soft music, give each other passionate kisses (whether it's a peck on the lips or kissing for an extended period of time) as long as you're not frenchin', sleep in bed together embracing from head to toe (fully/partially clothed of course), cuddle and spoon on the couch, playfully nibble her ears and neck, soul gaze (looking deeply into each other's eyes), send each other exotic flowers and write passionate poems, have relaxing and fun romantic baths together (just like Xena & Gabby did in the episodes: "A Day In The Life" and "The God You Know"), carve your initials into trees, have a romantic picnic, hold each other while watching a beautiful sunset, tickle her feet with yours, give each other Eskimo kisses, work on meaningful projects together in which your brains beat as passionately as your hearts, give each other soothing massages, go for a romantic walk in the moonlight, give each other cute love-bite marks, go on exciting adventures, have deep intimate soul-bearing conversations (and feel like you just had an "emotional orgasm" when its over), have fancy romantic candlelight dinners, nonsexually caress and fondle one another, make up unique pet names for each other, and so so much more! If you two really think, you both may just find many other creative ways to show love and affection. The list can be endless!
P.S. Yep, I believe playful pillow fights should also be included in that list!!! **Smile**
Thou Shall Not Have:
1.) Vaginal Sex (i.e. with dildos)
2.) Oral Sex
3.) Anal Sex
4.) Dry Sex
5.) Cyber Sex
6.) Manual Sex
7.) Mutual Masturbation
8.) French/Tongue Kissing
9.) Touching Of Sexual Body Parts
10.) Lustful Thoughts About Each Other
(Laughs) I know, a bit silly but kind of humorous. Anyway, let's talk about the ninth rule, "thou shall not have touching of sexual body parts." There are exceptions in certain situations. For example, what if your significant other becomes permanently disabled (God forbid) and cannot wash herself "up and down there?" You could do it in the same manner as a home nurse would. There is nothing wrong with that. Another one is the buttocks. Of course, you can slap/grab each other's butts in a playful way. Football players do it, friends do it. So what I mean is not touching the buttocks in a sexual manner. I'm just saying these things in case somebody brings up those "what if" questions, trying to challenge my ideas.
There is another thing I want to discuss. It may look like I am really introducing a very "boring" and "dull" third way of life. You may think there isn't much you can do with each other nonsexually, only envisioning a life of simply holding hands and kissing. Not true! That is because you are blocking yourself from seeing it. This is a medical (and psychological) condition known as "narrow tunnel vision."
For instance, you can have intimate tight bear hugs, hold hands with fingers intertwined, run your fingers through each other's hair, slow dance to soft music, give each other passionate kisses (whether it's a peck on the lips or kissing for an extended period of time) as long as you're not frenchin', sleep in bed together embracing from head to toe (fully/partially clothed of course), cuddle and spoon on the couch, playfully nibble her ears and neck, soul gaze (looking deeply into each other's eyes), send each other exotic flowers and write passionate poems, have relaxing and fun romantic baths together (just like Xena & Gabby did in the episodes: "A Day In The Life" and "The God You Know"), carve your initials into trees, have a romantic picnic, hold each other while watching a beautiful sunset, tickle her feet with yours, give each other Eskimo kisses, work on meaningful projects together in which your brains beat as passionately as your hearts, give each other soothing massages, go for a romantic walk in the moonlight, give each other cute love-bite marks, go on exciting adventures, have deep intimate soul-bearing conversations (and feel like you just had an "emotional orgasm" when its over), have fancy romantic candlelight dinners, nonsexually caress and fondle one another, make up unique pet names for each other, and so so much more! If you two really think, you both may just find many other creative ways to show love and affection. The list can be endless!
P.S. Yep, I believe playful pillow fights should also be included in that list!!! **Smile**
Reaction To Pagan Kennedy's Article
As you can see, there are several types of Boston marriages: business partnership, artistic collaboration, and sometimes it is a friendship nurtured with all the care that we usually squander on our mates — a friendship as it could be if we made it the center of our lives (and that's what romantic friendship also means). It is completely up to you to decide which one you want. In my opinion, Boston marriage combined with romantic friendship is the most intimate thing of all.... and that would be the rarest and most precious kind of Friendship!
Notice I left out the lesbians. Yes, I'm very aware and do recognize these women have loving and affectionate relationships (which is very real), but it's also sexual. That is why they belong in lesbian relationships, not in Boston marriages. Please remember that this social institution is supposed to be nonsexual (and the majority of them are). There is no reason for lesbians to hide behind Boston marriages, and they shouldn't. Our society today has become very accepting of lesbians, even allowing same-sex gay marriages, and that is where they belong. I totally respect it as well.
So, Are You Two Together? (Part 5)
Liz sashays into the kitchen, a shopping bag crinkling under her arm. "I bought you these," she says, "because you've been wearing those mismatched gloves with holes in them."
I slide on the mittens, and my hands turn into fuzzy paws, pink and red with a touch of gold. "I love them," I say, and hug her, patting her back with my fuzz. She laughs and shifts her eyes away, a bit embarrassed by her own generosity. "I couldn't have my roommate going around in shabby gloves," she says.
She uses the word "roommate." But I know what she means.
I slide on the mittens, and my hands turn into fuzzy paws, pink and red with a touch of gold. "I love them," I say, and hug her, patting her back with my fuzz. She laughs and shifts her eyes away, a bit embarrassed by her own generosity. "I couldn't have my roommate going around in shabby gloves," she says.
She uses the word "roommate." But I know what she means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
