Asexual, Homoromantic Relationship

[Anastasia13]

Ok, as along as homosexuality and such is being discussed here, what do y'all think about the idea of asexual homo-romantic people having romantic relationships like that?

[oremus1]

what does that involve? are they, basically chaste best friends?

[Anastasia13]

what does that involve? are they, basically chaste best friends?

 

Falling in love and romantic love between two of the same gender but no sexual desire or activity.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Light and Truth

[NotreDame]

You have someone in mind?

[CatherineM]

I had a lesbian couple come in for estate planning who had lived together 50 years and never had sex.

[Anastasia13]

You have someone in mind?

 

Yes, and I know you usually go for someone a little more burly, but trust me, he's wonderful and you two could really click.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Jesus had a favoured disciple, if that means anything in this thread.

[Ice_nine]

A couple years back I researched the notion of "romantic friendships." There's not a lot of information, but I remember some sources saying it was more of a common idea back in the medieval times or what have you. (My searches also took me to a forum consisting of "asexual lesbians." The world is a weird place.

 

I think many Catholics would say romantic love is somehow inextricably connected to erotic love, perhaps as a precursor, and in the current social climate that is certainly the general rule of thumb. However, I think our culture is all to eager to sexualize our behaviors and desires a la Sigmund Freud. I don't blame him entirely for this phenomenon, but his ideas really have had an enormous impact on our culture.

 

I think this over-sexualization has been detrimental because we've set such strict parameters on affection/human contact and closeness such that they are epitomized, or perceived to be only fully realized, in some connection to sexual love. Therefore people who are barred from that sexual expression (whether internally or externally barred, one way or the other) probably feel a sense of loss that these "truest" bonds of love and affection are inaccessible.

 

I would say that I think these ideas are a unique product of our culture and that both religious and secular people very much by into the idea. I also think it's a toxic idea though in that it really limits the richness of human relationships that we are meant to experience.

 

Looking cross-culturally there are some interesting things to note. Lots of Middle-Eastern men kiss, Indian boys often hold hands etc. (there are other customs and such but those are the two I remember) without any connotation of homosexuality. Here those behaviors would certainly raise an eyebrow or at least the assumption that there's some gayness going on.

 

It would be nice, in my opinion, to see two people holding hands and not assume they want to bang each other either overtly or on some subconscious repressed level, but I don't think that will change any time soon. Even though some places in our society are becoming less homophobic, there's still the pervasive idea that sexual urges are guiding the behavior. Couple this with increasing isolationalism and I think the picture starts to look rather sad and lonely.

 

So anyhow I think that it could work maybe in a theoretical sense, but in reality our behavior and beliefs are contingent upon and conditioned by the outside culture so it would be tricky. It would take two really self-aware people, and even then I would venture to guess most Catholics disapproving of such an idea on the grounds that romantic love is ordered (Cats love that word) to eventual sex.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Ice_nine

[Ice_nine]

I had a lesbian couple come in for estate planning who had lived together 50 years and never had sex.

 

That's interesting. Did they volunteer that information or did someone ask?

[NotreDame]

Yes, and I know you usually go for someone a little more burly, but trust me, he's wonderful and you two could really click.

You know what... this ^^^ is funny and normally I'd have a comeback, but I just went gym shopping in San Francisco yesterday and it was a very traumatic experience that sapped me of my ability to make any gay related jokes for a bit, even of the self deprecating variety.  This review is from someone else, but it does encapsulate my experience (warning, describes sexual acts):

 

http://www.yelp.com/biz/fitness-sf-san-francisco?hrid=Ic0uac1SPjwK2X0J1k3zJQ

 

I will say that I will make a conscious effort never, ever to look at a women when she walks into a gym ever, ever again.  Having every single guy staring you down (looking you right in the eye) is not a comfortable experience, especially when they are all wearing tank tops and on cycles of dianabol.  I've been to gay bars before and I've shopped in some gay areas (some great clothes, good prices) but I've never been to a gay gym.  This wasn't in a gay area, so I wasn't expecting it.  Let me just say that it was a very different experience from the gay environments I'd been in before.  I really hope that's not how women feel walking into a gym full of straight guys. 

 

The worst is that everybody here in the city is super passive aggressive (yes, from SF to seattle the whole northwest is really passive agressive and actually quite prudish outside of gay areas and red light districts) so I couldn't even make jokes about it afterward, which is generally how I decompress and cope.

 

My searches also took me to a forum consisting of "asexual lesbians." 

 

"My searches took me to a forum consisting of 'asexual gay men'" - said nobody ever.

 

[CatherineM]

That's interesting. Did they volunteer that information or did someone ask?

Believe me when I say that I never asked questions I didn't want to hear the answer to. I had a woman come to me who had never known for sure what gender she was. She offered to show me and I declined. I never needed to see the plumbing or hear what they did with it in order to take care of their legal needs.

[Aloysius]

Don't know how long anyone here has been around but we had a member here... actually sort of a founding member here since the beginning, since before my time even, who had a romantic asexual relationship along these lines. Ultimately it can't last in my opinion (which is why you likely do not know him)... romantic love is inherently eros and will therefore be inherently sexual... attempting to have an asexual same sex romance is like attempting to be a vegetrlarian while cooking steaks every day then throwing them away... it wont work.

[Anastasia13]

Don't know how long anyone here has been around but we had a member here... actually sort of a founding member here since the beginning, since before my time even, who had a romantic asexual relationship along these lines. Ultimately it can't last in my opinion (which is why you likely do not know him)... romantic love is inherently eros and will therefore be inherently sexual... attempting to have an asexual same sex romance is like attempting to be a vegetrlarian while cooking steaks every day then throwing them away... it wont work.

 

I do not mean a homosexual couple that simply decides to not have sex. I meant asexual like the 1% of the population according to a 2004 study that does not experience sexual attraction to anyone and the farther end of it. Asexuals have differing levels of sex drive (sometimes none not just low) and distinguish between aromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic, biromantic.

[NotreDame]

No idea what an asexual is or isn't, but this did remind me of the sort of "crush" that appeared to exist in the early parts of Waugh's Brideshead revisited between Charles and Sebastian:

 

http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/brideshead-revisited-did-they-or-didnt-they/

 

Great book, btw... and for the record, no physical contact was implied in the books that I remember, but Charles did have quite a fondness romantic or otherwise with Sebastian

[Ice_nine]

"My searches took me to a forum consisting of 'asexual gay men'" - said nobody ever.

 

:hehe:

 

romantic love is inherently eros and will therefore be inherently sexual

 

So I've been told, but how so? The early Christian letters talked about how love is necessary in marriage, but even within a Christian context the notion of romanticism as an ideal for marriage didn't arise until much later, correct? In many cases marriages were done for economic reasons, and in many places in the world today marriages are arranged or at least molded by the community. In other words marriage is dictated by wider social demands (families, whole communities) rather than the desires of two individuals. 

 

Maybe romantic love has risen in our particular cultural context to be connected to erotic love, but I do take issue to the word "inherent," especially because romantic love seems like a novelty. I know there are multiple words for love in Greek that mean different things, (agape, eros, philia, storge), but this notion of romance, is it seen in ancient texts? Or is it just our anachronistic projection onto the texts.

 

What about romantic love makes it inherently sexual? I've not heard an explanation that doesn't wind up being circular. Not a big deal or course just curious if you have an explanation :bounce: