Wiki talk
See Romantic Friendships here, I don't have the direct link just now. Commentary as per article, via f-list.
"these authors typically favor the social constructionist view that sexual orientation is a modern, culturally constructed concept"? Yeah, how about not. Ogling of men just happened. Other women ogling women or men ogling men also tends to just happen, despite that not being the cultural norm or taught thing or whatever. Also, as said by commenters elsewhere, the use of the word romantic might be replaced with sisterly or familial or whatever other thing instead, too, if talking merely sharing beds and such. As in, I don't consider the term "romantic friendship" accurate. Gender roles may be a construct or are, as the article further down suggests, but sexual orientation? You might go for sex with the not preferred sex or gender or whatever, sure, but the preferential leanings hardly seem the type of thing to be cultural constructs, hello.
At which you're then reminded that people didn't get homosexuality apparently, and go "So... why do women fancy men then? Are you guys not desirable at all? Nothing to fall in love with, even?" about not quite getting what is so difficult to "get" about it, when it happens and has for ages and is quite natural, whatever the animal. Nobody's asking you to think about the "acts" or anything, are they? O.o? I mean, I don't want to think about sex between het couples either, ew, if talking people you might know or couples seen out there at random or whatever else. Who does? That someone might instantly get the thought of the actual sex acts in mind if seeing a gay couple merely says that they're not yet accepted as casually just there, and are either oversexualized or otherwise seen as the other, whatever such things. It happens, and applies to things like people wondering if people in wheelchairs can have sex (or how), or about transgendered people or any other slightly different or possibly unusual thing, but still.
Ruth 1:15-17 from the Bible is apparently also interesting. "Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried." Mostly because I don't see why gender or sex or anything the other person is would come into play if that's simply the kind of relationship you have. It might be between a man and a woman as well, and one or both married, if the spouses are at all understanding of such things and able to accept the other as part of the other's life.
I have my issues or things that I may have more difficulty dealing with, but I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is over close friendships having different sides like that as well, if the people want that of their friendship, or are that close after time. Or also of sleeping in the same bed, if visiting another. If there is a guest room, it's likely to be more comfortable and roomy, allowing each person their own sleeping habits, but again, what's the big deal about two guys sleeping in the same bed if that's just how it is?
Marital meanings likewise. "...that the word would have meant to persons then: the formation of a common household, the sharing of everything in a permanent co-residential unit, the formation of a family unit wherein the two partners were committed, ideally, to each other, with the intent to raise children, and so on." I can easily see a nonsexual same-sex pair shacking up together if they so feel like it and nothing else seems more it either. Asexual people these days might gladly opt for something of the sort, for example. If there are warmer feelings involved, well, again, how asexual are you, and what counts as what? If anything, all it does is make you want to form the common household, the earlier bits already having emphasized how much you move alone and can't afford to say anything about friendships or anything either. *shrug*
Likewise, it would be far more sensible of many people these days to live with their friends and not buy into some idea of marriage only as the only other alternative to living alone as single or a spinster or whatever. It's better than communes if not a person into such things, for example. And after twenty years of living together, maybe you would love the other somewhat akin an old married couple perhaps fallen out of sexual practises, and again, what's wrong with that then?
I sort of also want to post at least some of that as a public post, since it would be enlightening of some of my potential views perhaps, but with references to some things it's already slightly bad form of me to post it all even like this, alluding to things said elsewhere even in an f-locked post. Nameless or not, merely questioning or wondering or not. I'll need to read Non-westernized concepts of male sexuality as well in any case. And I guess I will post that publicly, anyway.
Carr icon not precisely related, but didn't want to use the Ravenclaw or rejecting "reality" icons either.
"these authors typically favor the social constructionist view that sexual orientation is a modern, culturally constructed concept"? Yeah, how about not. Ogling of men just happened. Other women ogling women or men ogling men also tends to just happen, despite that not being the cultural norm or taught thing or whatever. Also, as said by commenters elsewhere, the use of the word romantic might be replaced with sisterly or familial or whatever other thing instead, too, if talking merely sharing beds and such. As in, I don't consider the term "romantic friendship" accurate. Gender roles may be a construct or are, as the article further down suggests, but sexual orientation? You might go for sex with the not preferred sex or gender or whatever, sure, but the preferential leanings hardly seem the type of thing to be cultural constructs, hello.
At which you're then reminded that people didn't get homosexuality apparently, and go "So... why do women fancy men then? Are you guys not desirable at all? Nothing to fall in love with, even?" about not quite getting what is so difficult to "get" about it, when it happens and has for ages and is quite natural, whatever the animal. Nobody's asking you to think about the "acts" or anything, are they? O.o? I mean, I don't want to think about sex between het couples either, ew, if talking people you might know or couples seen out there at random or whatever else. Who does? That someone might instantly get the thought of the actual sex acts in mind if seeing a gay couple merely says that they're not yet accepted as casually just there, and are either oversexualized or otherwise seen as the other, whatever such things. It happens, and applies to things like people wondering if people in wheelchairs can have sex (or how), or about transgendered people or any other slightly different or possibly unusual thing, but still.
Ruth 1:15-17 from the Bible is apparently also interesting. "Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; for where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried." Mostly because I don't see why gender or sex or anything the other person is would come into play if that's simply the kind of relationship you have. It might be between a man and a woman as well, and one or both married, if the spouses are at all understanding of such things and able to accept the other as part of the other's life.
I have my issues or things that I may have more difficulty dealing with, but I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is over close friendships having different sides like that as well, if the people want that of their friendship, or are that close after time. Or also of sleeping in the same bed, if visiting another. If there is a guest room, it's likely to be more comfortable and roomy, allowing each person their own sleeping habits, but again, what's the big deal about two guys sleeping in the same bed if that's just how it is?
Marital meanings likewise. "...that the word would have meant to persons then: the formation of a common household, the sharing of everything in a permanent co-residential unit, the formation of a family unit wherein the two partners were committed, ideally, to each other, with the intent to raise children, and so on." I can easily see a nonsexual same-sex pair shacking up together if they so feel like it and nothing else seems more it either. Asexual people these days might gladly opt for something of the sort, for example. If there are warmer feelings involved, well, again, how asexual are you, and what counts as what? If anything, all it does is make you want to form the common household, the earlier bits already having emphasized how much you move alone and can't afford to say anything about friendships or anything either. *shrug*
Likewise, it would be far more sensible of many people these days to live with their friends and not buy into some idea of marriage only as the only other alternative to living alone as single or a spinster or whatever. It's better than communes if not a person into such things, for example. And after twenty years of living together, maybe you would love the other somewhat akin an old married couple perhaps fallen out of sexual practises, and again, what's wrong with that then?
I sort of also want to post at least some of that as a public post, since it would be enlightening of some of my potential views perhaps, but with references to some things it's already slightly bad form of me to post it all even like this, alluding to things said elsewhere even in an f-locked post. Nameless or not, merely questioning or wondering or not. I'll need to read Non-westernized concepts of male sexuality as well in any case. And I guess I will post that publicly, anyway.
Carr icon not precisely related, but didn't want to use the Ravenclaw or rejecting "reality" icons either.