![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
floorpigeonPeople are so weird and mysterious and painful to contemplate and beautiful. Like, at the same time. I dunno. How can something beautiful be so painful and unfair? I feel childish even thinking about it.
Anyway, so I have this prejudice: I think if you're truly gay, you shouldn't be married/attached to a person of the opposite sex; unquestionably if it's a lie, but also if you're honest and mutually agree. Like I said, this latter part isn't rational but a prejudice. I mean, the thing is, the reason is, to me a sexual relationship is an integral part of marriage; I don't fully get why you'd need a relationship and not a close friendship if you love each other but don't want to have sex.
Like, why is 'Will and Grace' a -relationship- and not a friendship? So maybe it's not about gay/straight but about what romantic love is.
I just read this guy say he's gay and in a happy open relationship with his 'soul-mate' and best friend (female), where he gets his sexual needs met elsewhere and so does she. I fully believe him when he says they're both happy. I don't judge or doubt that it works for them so it's fine. But it bothers me on an abstract level (a lot). He's not the asshole I read earlier who thinks it's ok to lie and cheat with his best friend just because it supports his happiness with his wife and it's apples and oranges or whatever-- this guy is the 'good' version of that guy. This guy makes a total separation between sex and love, which to me is lots less creepy than someone who muddles and lies self-servingly, but just so sad. That separation is so sad, but as weird as their arrangement is, what really hurts me is that it's so normal-- so many couples separate these things yet *suffer* (without ever being categorically sexually incompatible). They've obviously found a better solution than most.
Maybe it's not so sad and I'm just a romantic-- honestly, I just don't know. If this guy can stay 'in love' his whole life, without ever having sex with someone he loves, he's still luckier than most. But it's so sad to me. We separate different things, maybe. For me, non-sexual love isn't 'relationship' love. It seems a productive separation that allows room for other relationships without pain. Even saying 'soul-mates' doesn't say 'romantic relationship' to me: that's still friends. I guess maybe it's that people have different definitions and that's it. Once you love your roommate and need your roommate and want to be together forever, does it still matter you don't want to have sex? To me it does.
I'm a big believer in platonic love, but what I really hate is confusing it with romantic love, or conflating it or whatever. In some ways, though, there's a whole big strand of romantic literature and/or love stories which do exactly that. There's the 'eros' strand and the 'philia' strand. Both camps seem convinced theirs is the One True Strand, or One True Love (you can sort of tell a person is a philia-strander if they even use words like 'soul-mate', I guess). For philia-stranders, sex is an afterthought, this semi-insignificant 'thing you do', or 'lifestyle choice', or 'movie or sex this Tuesday?' so it's not a big deal to 'go out' vs 'eat in'. These must be the people who write shounen-ai stories that don't even have kissing. Conversely, eros-stranders often confuse sex with love and do stupid things like stay with people only 'cause they sex is good, or write stories where people fall in love half an hour after sex (or during).
To be honest, I'm an eros-strander, but both are stupid, and painful to contemplate to the point of being tragic. Happy or not, living with your best friend and calling it True Love is kind of tragic. Likewise, living with your fuck-buddy who you're barely able to tolerate and calling it True Love. I'm only an eros-strander because I believe in the union of opposites, consuming yourself/the Other, and love as transformation. You can't really -do- that without the dark libidinal energy that drives aggression and sexual union. It's the yin-yang thing-- you need that possessiveness, fear, need in order to overcome it. You need the darkness to find the light. If you don't want to possess and consume and sexually own someone, how can you grow past it to love them purely? But, of course, this is just my happy little personal philosophy and not 'reality'.
I feel guilty, in other words, because I think this prejudice is just childishness; no definition can be 'right' in any real sense. There's no True Love or right way to have a romantic relationship; it's whatever works. If we all lost our libido tomorrow, it's not like love would die. Eros-stranders have much to learn from philia-stranders in the sense of that stoicness and devotion. I just don't think that sex is an afterthought, this minor 'thing you do', like washing your face. It's not your identity, either. It's not sentimental, something like a part of love. It's a basic human drive, like the need to have a home, or the need to have children. I feel like romantic relationships (objectively) are born from the need for a 'child-rearing unit', so of course wanting to have sex only with each other may be as ingrained as to be biological (even if people are also built to cheat-- typical for human nature). It goes against our instincts to separate sex from marriage-type love for a good reason. I don't think you're in any way 'evolved' to learn to separate it; I'm not saying it's automatically a loss, but neither is it a gain.
People overvalue it and undervalue it. Overvalue when they would -automatically- break up due to sexual jealousy/cheating; undervalue when they think a marriage-type relationship doesn't need sex at all. I mean, I know I'm picky-- to me, it's not enough to love, but marriage-love needs to be a particular kind. Somewhat unhealthy, somewhat transcendent. Ugly and beautiful. I want to feel a little like a pure spirit and a little like the wife of a Cro-Magnon asshole male. I don't think I'm alone at all. :)
Anyway, so I have this prejudice: I think if you're truly gay, you shouldn't be married/attached to a person of the opposite sex; unquestionably if it's a lie, but also if you're honest and mutually agree. Like I said, this latter part isn't rational but a prejudice. I mean, the thing is, the reason is, to me a sexual relationship is an integral part of marriage; I don't fully get why you'd need a relationship and not a close friendship if you love each other but don't want to have sex.
Like, why is 'Will and Grace' a -relationship- and not a friendship? So maybe it's not about gay/straight but about what romantic love is.
I just read this guy say he's gay and in a happy open relationship with his 'soul-mate' and best friend (female), where he gets his sexual needs met elsewhere and so does she. I fully believe him when he says they're both happy. I don't judge or doubt that it works for them so it's fine. But it bothers me on an abstract level (a lot). He's not the asshole I read earlier who thinks it's ok to lie and cheat with his best friend just because it supports his happiness with his wife and it's apples and oranges or whatever-- this guy is the 'good' version of that guy. This guy makes a total separation between sex and love, which to me is lots less creepy than someone who muddles and lies self-servingly, but just so sad. That separation is so sad, but as weird as their arrangement is, what really hurts me is that it's so normal-- so many couples separate these things yet *suffer* (without ever being categorically sexually incompatible). They've obviously found a better solution than most.
Maybe it's not so sad and I'm just a romantic-- honestly, I just don't know. If this guy can stay 'in love' his whole life, without ever having sex with someone he loves, he's still luckier than most. But it's so sad to me. We separate different things, maybe. For me, non-sexual love isn't 'relationship' love. It seems a productive separation that allows room for other relationships without pain. Even saying 'soul-mates' doesn't say 'romantic relationship' to me: that's still friends. I guess maybe it's that people have different definitions and that's it. Once you love your roommate and need your roommate and want to be together forever, does it still matter you don't want to have sex? To me it does.
I'm a big believer in platonic love, but what I really hate is confusing it with romantic love, or conflating it or whatever. In some ways, though, there's a whole big strand of romantic literature and/or love stories which do exactly that. There's the 'eros' strand and the 'philia' strand. Both camps seem convinced theirs is the One True Strand, or One True Love (you can sort of tell a person is a philia-strander if they even use words like 'soul-mate', I guess). For philia-stranders, sex is an afterthought, this semi-insignificant 'thing you do', or 'lifestyle choice', or 'movie or sex this Tuesday?' so it's not a big deal to 'go out' vs 'eat in'. These must be the people who write shounen-ai stories that don't even have kissing. Conversely, eros-stranders often confuse sex with love and do stupid things like stay with people only 'cause they sex is good, or write stories where people fall in love half an hour after sex (or during).
To be honest, I'm an eros-strander, but both are stupid, and painful to contemplate to the point of being tragic. Happy or not, living with your best friend and calling it True Love is kind of tragic. Likewise, living with your fuck-buddy who you're barely able to tolerate and calling it True Love. I'm only an eros-strander because I believe in the union of opposites, consuming yourself/the Other, and love as transformation. You can't really -do- that without the dark libidinal energy that drives aggression and sexual union. It's the yin-yang thing-- you need that possessiveness, fear, need in order to overcome it. You need the darkness to find the light. If you don't want to possess and consume and sexually own someone, how can you grow past it to love them purely? But, of course, this is just my happy little personal philosophy and not 'reality'.
I feel guilty, in other words, because I think this prejudice is just childishness; no definition can be 'right' in any real sense. There's no True Love or right way to have a romantic relationship; it's whatever works. If we all lost our libido tomorrow, it's not like love would die. Eros-stranders have much to learn from philia-stranders in the sense of that stoicness and devotion. I just don't think that sex is an afterthought, this minor 'thing you do', like washing your face. It's not your identity, either. It's not sentimental, something like a part of love. It's a basic human drive, like the need to have a home, or the need to have children. I feel like romantic relationships (objectively) are born from the need for a 'child-rearing unit', so of course wanting to have sex only with each other may be as ingrained as to be biological (even if people are also built to cheat-- typical for human nature). It goes against our instincts to separate sex from marriage-type love for a good reason. I don't think you're in any way 'evolved' to learn to separate it; I'm not saying it's automatically a loss, but neither is it a gain.
People overvalue it and undervalue it. Overvalue when they would -automatically- break up due to sexual jealousy/cheating; undervalue when they think a marriage-type relationship doesn't need sex at all. I mean, I know I'm picky-- to me, it's not enough to love, but marriage-love needs to be a particular kind. Somewhat unhealthy, somewhat transcendent. Ugly and beautiful. I want to feel a little like a pure spirit and a little like the wife of a Cro-Magnon asshole male. I don't think I'm alone at all. :)
