Cross and Sad - Deadlock!

[CateS]

Hi all,

 

So it's been AGES since I posted here.  Been through the 'venty twenties' and during that time I've grappled with considering myself hetero, ace, bi and am now struggling again. 

 

Right now I consider myself bisexual by history of attraction, but heterosexual by choice of thought and action.  That being said, I've only felt red-blooded sexuality without a preceding close friendship on two occasions - once with a woman and once with a man, and there was still a friendship there - just not a close one.  

 

Let me explain more about what I mean when I say I'm bisexual and biromantic by history of attraction, but heterosexual and heteroromantic by choice of thought and action.  By saying this I mean that I hope I won't act on my same sex attractions or play them out as mental fantasies any more, not out of homophobia, but because it's nice to have such a big, clear chunk of the human population for whom this tangly, often-awkward, often underhanded romance-wannabe-motive-related social 'stuff' just doesn't apply.  I've chosen my sexual/romantic 'off-limits' gender group to be the same gender as me because if that were a consistent and unjudgemental but unsaid collectively-agreed-and-assumed social norm in the general population - if everybody voluntarily subscribed to it instead of it being an individualised thing - then I think a lot of people would be better off.  For one thing, worry-free, sustained, platonic touch between same sexes would be far less charged and suggestive, and that is good for people who are single and don't have a close-knit, close by or touchy-feel-y family.  Those people need such touch too - it's a basic human need that they are sorely deprived of in our world today as long as they're single and/or not sexually interested.  And I know what that feels like.  So for me, if I'm going to say that I think society would be better off with this, that and the other, then I'd better practice what I preach.

 

Obviously collective abstience from sex with the opposite sex, instead of with the same sex, is not an equally viable option.  It would have its problems as a social norm, as then people would only be able to get pregnant by artificial insemination, and that costs thousands which isn't fair to wonderful people perfectly able to bring up children but not able to afford the costs or gain access to such a service.  Now, it may seem like an unfair vision of mine to envision people of the same sex who are only attracted to people of the same sex undertaking lifelong abstinence for the sake of a social norm that excludes them in that way.  I can't say I speak from experience so my armchair words are to be taken with a pinch of salt, I know.  But when close friendships could look that much closer (sharing lives, bedrooms and homes, joint child adoptions - because joint adoption is a beautiful, altruistic act of love that to me goes beyond sexuality - longer cuddles, companionship, cheek nose and forehead kisses even in some cases, linked arms or even held hands, arms round each other, openly expressed sentiments and affirmations of affection etc.) because people just didn't feel AND NEVER EXPECTED TO FEEL that uncertain, often uncomfortable 'are-we-aren't-we' and 'how do they see me and what do they expect' and 'am I leading them on?' vibes, wouldn't a sexually abstinent life look like a far less drastic and difficult ask?  Folks, I don't care what sexuality you are - IT'S ONLY SEX.  Don't make everything about sex - that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.  It's not the most important, or the widest-reaching, thing that exists. 

 

Anyway, the point is, I can be close to people of the same sex, and open with them about my bisexuality but also my same sex abstinence, in an up-front way - and know that they can see that I have a good reason not to 'go for' them, and thus that they can trust in closer friendships more.  And that's worth so much.  As for the opposite sex, well I think they just have to accept that sex between people of the opposite sex is how procreation generally happens, that those questions of friend-or-flame are not entirely avoidable, that there is therefore a certain inter-gender etiquette when it comes to social interactions, and that people should be up front about their feelings of friendship or romance so we all know where we stand.

 

I'm also now in a position where I can bring myself to orgasm regularly, and yes it's nice, but again, it's one nice feeling in a world where there are hundreds of nice feelings, many of which do far more outward good and feed far more parts of a person.  For example, if I had to choose between an orgasm and a walk along a white beach looking for grotty buckie shells, which one is the more wholesome food for the soul?  Would I choose what's essentially an endogenous drug-high over the prospect of basking in the beauty of creation, getting fresh air and exercise, and getting away from the hubbub for a bit?  Maybe sometimes I would choose the former but why would any sensible person with a healthy, balanced mindset think that it was in any sense a close competition in general?  I'm not being intolerant here, I'm asking a logical question - when so many things give you so many types of satisfaction, why behave in ways that risk narrowing it down to just one that only gives you one, short-lived aspect, and placing that on a pedestal to affect every other source?  And why compare everything to it?  Isn't that analagous to obsession and drug addiction? 

 

Today I'm feeling pretty angry about the whole 'demisexual' thing.  I just got very gently and kindly turned down by someone who just doesn't see me in 'that way' but sees me as a 'close friend'.  That wasn't a phoney excuse either - we ARE cloes friends and they behave consistently within that and have said that our close friendship will not change (I told them as soon as the longstanding friendship started turning into love, as I'm fed up of either torturing or deluding myself for long times in that respect).  I hope that turns out to be the case.

 

So I'm not at all angry at that person - they were frank, honest, kind, accepting and reassuring.  But I am kind of angry about other stuff.  I mean, I ONLY fall in love with people who have first become close friends.  That's not a principle, it's just the order of how it happens with me.  And if someone is a friend for whom I have feelings I'd instinctively deepen the friendship with them BEFORE letting them know that I was in love with them.  But although it would be the case even if I wasn't thinking about principles, I do think it's a good principle too.  I mean, is that so bloody socially 'off' to do?  Does it really need to be designated a minority sexual orientation label to be seen as sensible?  Is it really whacky enough to merit being considered a whole new deviant sexual orientation?  Look, anyone who wants a serious relationship ought surely to build it on friendship because - and I wish people would get this into their heads - relationships cannot live on sex alone, for reasons alluded to above.  If a relationship is like food, then sex is like sugar, and imagine how malnourished you'd be if you ate nothing but sugar.  Sugar garnishes what's ALREADY been made!  Yes, if I ever get married I want the sugar in the tea as it were, but I would never strike up a connection for someone primarily for the hope of sugar!  I don't make and drink a cup of tea for the sugar-rush; I do it because I like tea.

 

Well, if other people can't see it, and if it's been deemed socially abnormal, I guess I'm forever going to be friendzoned on those grounds.  I don't mind being told someone doesn't see me in that way, because if they don't they don't (I think that's what they meant anyway) - but to not see me in that way BECAUSE they see me RATHER as a close friend and ne'er the twain shall meet - well I hope THAT isn't the norm and if it is, well...!  But I can see it becoming more of a generalised norm if it's the only way for individuals to denote who they're not even going to think about tangly sexual and romantic matters concerning, because there's no consistent, collective social norm to decide it for them and stick to, that still fulfills emotional needs for companionship and touch.  Grr!!!!!  Free love is overrated!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Snao Cone]

Hmm, I think most people aren't against getting romantically involved with people who were close friends first. It may provide an extra mental or emotional barrier for them because of what's at stake. Some people prefer to start romantic or sexual relationships with fresh faces, and that's just how their minds and hearts operate. Other people - most people, I would gather - take it case by case. In your case, since close friendships are just inherently a necessary ingredient for your feelings to develop, it makes sense that you see things mostly differently. But you're right to separate your personal frustrations from the actions/intentions/feelings of your friend, and I hope that maintains your friendship long past when you shake this feeling off.

 

Really, the range of how romantic and sexual feelings develop for different people makes it even less of an issue that you, personally, require that friendship. It may be a "minority orientation" but its prevalence is probably not that far off the type of person who can't conceive of starting a relationship with anyone who's already their friend. There's nothing deviant about it. I think people who act like that sort of thing doesn't make any sense in general are closed minded. The way you develop attraction towards people is totally fine.

[CateS]

This is very cheering and reassuring - thanks!  And thanks for your wellwishes and encouragement re maintaining the friendship and keeping personal feelings out of the shaking-off process.  I really just want the crush on this person to be totally a thing of the past now because the close friendship was/is absolutely lovely and very balanced, completely at ease in its own right, and this has rocked it in recent weeks for me and will still be clashing with it for a short time after.  However, it isn't the first time I've shaken a crush on a close friend by telling them - that friendship has survived and has in fact deepened to the point where we can share points of view about that time frankly and without any passion or discomfort, meet one to one with mutual trust in each other's regard of the other etc.  But I did need some hope in general too about my romantic prospects, so what you say about it not being deviant or that uncommon is GREAT to hear!  I suppose I must feel compassion for the kind of people who cannot fall in love with anyone other than a fresh face, and who cannot conceive of falling in love with someone who is already a friend, because presumably they quite frequently lose everything to do with the person in question almost straight away and often irrevocably if it doesn't work out romantically, whereas I at least still come away with the underlying friendship, which counts for a lot long term in terms of emotional health and wellbeing.  I suppose also sometimes their fears are much the same as mine: I fall in love and am afraid to ruin a friendship because of it, and they don't want to go there with friends for fear of losing the friendship too.  So in a sense we're all on the same page.  What a nice response you gave me - it's really helped and bolstered - thank you!