Dear Friends

[true_enough]

Periodically I stand up and wave around a book called Dear Friends that features 19th century photographs of men in very affectionate poses. zekiel has pointed out a site for the book that shows some of those photos. As I said in zekiel's journal I think this observation is very interesting: This installation of highly suggestive and ambiguous photographs

Comments

[zebra363]

I'm still struggling with the concept of "passionate but innocent". From that website:

nineteenth-century American men and women were in many ways encouraged to establish intense, even passionate, bonds with members of their own sex... these ties could be romantic in ways that we would identify as sexual, but that Victorians, in their state of pre-Freudian innocence, would not.

Emotionally passionate, physically affectionate, but not crossing the line into sexual? Or yes, sexual, but not considered a big deal? What do they mean by "innocence"?

[finnigan_geist]

I'm pretty sure what they'd mean by that is that they were innocent of the whole "subconscious" thing Freud (damn that man) brought into use. Meaning, people of the same sex would have incredibly close, affectionate relationships that would be viewed as platonic, whether they were or not. Like, you could have your best female friend, emotionally as close to you as a sister, whom you showed lots of physical affection, who lived with you, and nobody, including the two of you, would ever think that it was a sexual relationship (the way we view it). Then Freud came along with his id and his phallic symbols and his repression and unlocked this whole ordeal and bah! Anyway I'm tired and sorry if this didn't make sense. Grrr Freud.

[true_enough]

Thank you so much. Really, I couldn't have put it better myself. I have the same feelings about Freud. He really ruined the party.

[finnigan_geist]

I hate Freud so hard in the face and sides, especially because I'm an English and Psychology major. As a psychologist, almost no one considers Freud's theories as truly being relevant or applicable anymore, but we have to recognize him as a major pioneer. And then I get to my English classes and people are talking about "repressed memories" and "superego" and "Oedipus complex" and "penis envy" and it makes me want to bite something.

[zebra363]

Maybe my question boils down to "did these relationships include sex, or not?" If yes, what are people getting at with the mentions of innocence and platonic friendship? As true_enough asks below, what does innocence mean? If no: I guess it's a stretch for me to imagine being very physically affectionate with someone and sleeping in the same bed and it never going further. But maybe that's because I'm a product of our sex-obsessed modern-day culture.

that would be viewed as platonic, whether they were or not

Does this imply that only a marriage (or an encounter with a prostitute) would be viewed as sexual?

[zebra363]

they were innocent of the whole "subconscious" thing Freud (damn that man) brought into use

I've just reread what you wrote and realised that you did define what you thought they meant by "innocence" - it just didn't make a lot of sense to me because I don't know much about Freud!

[finnigan_geist]

I'm afraid I wasn't very clear anyway. I think the "innocence" here could mean a couple things:

1) they didn't consider things we see as sexual sexually back then. Like you mention below, they could perhaps get sexual release from a doctor (and my goodness, what an interesting form of therapy) but not see that as necessarily "sexual."

2) in the other sense, and the one I think they origianlly meant (though I'm really not sure), it is very possible that people could have emotionally intimate and physically affectionate relationships with people of the same sex, and even sleep in the same bed with them, and not do anything sexual. I'm not sure about *this* time period too much -- my specialty is 18/19th century British Literature -- but it wouldn't have been uncommon for two unrelated women to live together. People were more "innocent" in that they wouldn't have thought that they were doing anything. Like you said, it's hard for you to imagine people having a relationship like that and not do sexual things in these "less innocent"

[zebra363]

Thanks for the more detailed reply!

they didn't consider things we see as sexual sexually back then

it is very possible that people could have emotionally intimate and physically affectionate relationships with people of the same sex, and even sleep in the same bed with them, and not do anything sexual

These are almost diametrically opposed, right? Either they *were* in fact engaging in what we consider sexual behaviour, but viewing it differently (and that makes sense to me!), or they *weren't*. (Of course, some were probably doing one thing and others the other!) As I've just said to true_enough below, the only way I can comfortably understand the second explanation is if one or both of them was 100% heterosexual. Otherwise, what reasons would they have had for differentiating between touching someone in one place but not another? It almost seems as if the more innocent someone was, the less likely they'd be to draw any kind of line

[finnigan_geist]

Yes, the two possibilities are very different, but I think both might apply in some way. It's just that tricky word "innocence

[true_enough]

You hit on several interesting points in that we tend to think that sexualty cannot be innocent. Does knowing what a dick feels like in your hand or your body exclude you from innocence? Is the only way to be innocent to remain untouched or ignorant of sex? Are passion, affection and sex really three different entities or are they in the same kiss?

I'm afraid I'm only muddy-ing the waters. For a clearer answer please see finnigan_geist's response. We both hate Freud.

[zebra363]

I like your questions. I had to turn to a dictionary for a definition of "innocent" and it didn't help. The only meaning I'm clear on is "not guilty"!

If they're not getting at "not sexual", what *do* they mean? Or do they mean yes, sexual, by our definitions, but not something that was in any way remarked upon or made an issue of, either by the participants or anyone else?

Just last week I read part of a friend's book about the history of the vibrator, which talked about how women during that time period were routinely manually brought to orgasm by their doctors as treatment for "hysteria". (The book had a drawing of a doctor anally penetrating a man with a vibrator, too - not sure what they were treating him for!) So, they had passionate platonic friendships but went to a doctor for sexual release?

I feel all at sea, without the context to interpret anything correctly.

I've re-read that story by Biblio you recommended quite a few times.

[true_enough]

So, they had passionate platonic friendships but went to a doctor for sexual release?

I get the impression that women of that time were taught to think of sex as only a means to procreate. Any orgasm was probably accidental and possibly startling. If I squint I can almost see how a doctor (who, at least, knows more about the mechanics of the body) would think an orgasm was the tail end of hysteria.

I can't believe how hard it is to get my head around sex and innocence. finnigan_geist's example of women holding hands and the adult seeing it one way and a child another, I think, speaks of intent as much as interpretation. Are the women holding hands for affections sake or are the doing it as a prelude to something more? And does wanting something more mean you're not innocent? And now we're back where we started. :)

[zebra363]

Still thinking about this the next morning

[finnigan_geist]

finnigan_geist's example of women holding hands and the adult seeing it one way and a child another, I think, speaks of intent as much as interpretation. Are the women holding hands for affections sake or are the doing it as a prelude to something more?

Well, that's the whole point. You have no idea what their intent is, but the adult would be more apt to at least suspect that the gesture is a prelude to something more. The child probably wouldn't consider it.

And does wanting something more mean you're not innocent?In this case, I do think that's the way they mean the word. I almost made the error of using it myself in calling hand-holding "innocent." I think one problem here is to automatically assume that the oposite of innocent is guilty in this conext, which I don't think is how they mean it. Wanting something more wouldn't mean you're "guilty," but it *would* mean that you're not holding a person's hand just for the sake of holding their hand; that you have other motives (and those motives aren't necessarily evil or wrong! But

[finnigan_geist]

and it is terribly pretentious of me to go quoting the OED, isn't it? I'm terribly sorry. My own words just aren't adequate a lot of the time. :\

[true_enough]

...devoid of cunning or artifice

I especially like that definition because even if someone wants more if they are devoid of cunning and artifice then I guess they would be innocent.