Interested in the social theory of nonsexual love?

[Jayann]

Hey folks, I decided to post a paper I wrote last semester for my sociology course. It's not specifically about asexuality, but it explores the place friendship/nonsexual love has, used to have, and ought to have in our hypersexual society. Please don't let the length daunt you. I could have actually explored parts far more in depth than I have, but I was sort of pressed for time, so if parts seem underdeveloped, that's probably why. Let me know what you think.

-----------------------

Americans are emotionally repressed. ‘Repressed?’ one might wonder. Indeed in today’s society we enjoy certain freedom of expressing all manner of loving relationships—surely there is little we repress. It is true that, while the sexual liberation of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have allowed for a new acceptance of an entire spectrum of sexual relationships, there is one sort of bond that goes almost entirely unrecognized in Western society. Friendship, nonsexual love between non-blood relations, is according to Rubin (1985), the “neglected relationship.” Americans practice platonic repression, favoring a fascination—one might say, obsession—with the power of sex and sexual love. Friends are all well and good, but one is expected to love—truly love—their sexual mate. Why have we created a society in which the norms pertaining to love force friendship to take a backseat to romantic love?

To understand why American society treats the concept of friendship that way it does, one must first examine how such norms concerning platonic interaction first developed in Western society. Certainly, the idea of friendship as a primary source of emotional fulfillment has not always been regarded with such apathy, even surprise as it is today. Up until the early twentieth century, certain time periods in particular help to illustrate the gravity with which friendship has historically been viewed.

Sources from antiquity indicate a strong emphasis on bonds built on shared virtues, especially in devoted friendships between men. The Biblical account of David and Jonathan’s incredibly strong bond illustrates the cultural values of pure love and unwavering devotion between two moral men. Their friendship defies political loyalties despite mortal danger, and it is clear that they are one another’s primary relationships. Brain (1976) explains “the love of David and Jonathan stresses the importance of inner attitudes, of the loyalty and trust of two men untouched by sexuality.” Nothing remained secret between the two, and it was for this reason Saul could reveal nothing of his plot against David to his son Jonathan, since even Saul admits that it is David’s trust—not his father’s—that Jonathan values more. Upon Jonathan’s death, David laments, “Thy love was wonderful passing the love of women…” (P. 28-29). In ancient Greece, friendships were viewed and idealized as per Aristotelian concepts of true friendship—that is, relationships based on emotional and moral connection, rather than pseudo-friendships founded primarily on the baser pursuits of utility or pleasure. It was this form of friendship Aristotle dubbed “friendship of virtue,” and was thought to embody the “most complete moral experience of which a human being is capable” (Pahl, 2000:22). Such relationships of antiquity were marked as being of primary importance in a person’s life, since they promoted the development of good moral standing and virtuous living. Close friends could achieve a kind of spiritual heightening that could not be

The early Middle Ages recognized the significance of close same-sex friendships in religious ceremonies of blood brotherhood. Two friends that wished to have their relationship formally recognized by the Church, and devote themselves as siblings in God (or god-sibs) would engage in a ritual to seal their union. According to Brain (1976):

Initially the Church itself sanctioned this rite, the priest offering up a prayer in which he dwelt on the duties of the two comrades who wished to become blood brothers. He then witnessed the declaration of a solemn oath between the two friends, who kissed and then scratched each other’s arms, mixing a few drops of blood with wine, which they drank. (P. 91)

Eventually this practice of exchanging blood was to be viewed as “pagan” and not suitable for a Christian friendship committal ceremony. This ritual was to be replaced with ceremony in which the friends’ union was made legitimate in a pledge to jointly care for a child that was to be baptized. It is this custom of co-godparenthood that would eventually lead to the Spanish word compadre, literally “co-parent,” which American culture recognizes as the equivalent as such terms as “pal” or “buddy”.

Victorian era Europe and America were notorious for the development of the “romantic friendship.” In the 1800’s, up until around the turn of the century, it was not unusual for same-sex friends to develop passionate and lifelong bonds. In fact, such was considered a norm, especially between women. Often times such relationships were maintained through regular epistolary correspondence because of a new mobilization enabled by the development of the Industrial Revolution. Friends would write one another deep and moving letters, beautifully crafted with poetic declarations of mutual love, despair at the other’s absence, and impatience for their next joyous reunion. Coontz (1992) examines quotes from several such letters:

Perfectly respectable Victorian women wrote to each other in terms such as these: “I hope for you so much, and feel so eager for you…that the expectation once more to see your face again, makes me feel hot and feverish.” They recorded the “furnace blast” of their “passionate attachments” to each other…and counted the hours until they could lie in bed, “caressing” each other again. They carved their names into trees, set flowers in front of one another’s portraits, danced together, held hands, and endured intense jealousies over rivals or small slights. (p. 66)

It was perfectly acceptable for female friends to engage in such physically affectionate and passionate relationships. However, this behavior was considered to be a homosocial norm, and was not to be sexual by any means. Sex occurred in marriage (and ideally, only in marriage), whereas nonsexual yet intense love could occur, and was often expected to occur, within the “separate spheres” of men and women. As Coontz (1992) explains, “The idea that all one’s passionate attachments should go toward a member of the opposite sex was absent in the sex-segregated Victorian family, despite its rhetoric about the centrality of love.” (P. 66) The nineteenth century was a period of sharp social division between the sexes. Husbands often found themselves travelling and engaged in the world of business, and their wives and children would were more or less bound to the household. Women frequented one another’s homes to offer aid in daily chores and in tending to children, and their visits may have lasted for days or even weeks. (Smith-Rosenberg, 1975) In a world where women had social interaction almost exclusively with other women for much of the time, it was to be expected that they would ultimately come to forge extremely intimate bonds. Same-sex “romantic friendships,” the term coined to describe the very palpable intensity of such friendships, were respected and recognized as emotionally significant by their husbands. Coontz claims that a widower of the Victorian period, upon finding such ardent epistles among his late wife’s effects, would recognize and appreciate the emotional fulfillment romantic friendships must have provided for his deceased wife. “In the nineteenth century, these sentiments were so respectable that surviving relatives often published them in elegies or donated the diaries and letters to libraries.” (Coontz, 1992:66) It is apparent that in, even in societies such as nineteenth-century America and Western Europe, which practiced homophobia and this supposed “centrality of love,” same-sex platonic bonds of love could be and often were considered to be the most meaningful and emotionally fulfilling relationships one could hope to engage in.

With some of these historic views of Western friendships in mind, let us now examine how non-Western societies of today treat asexual love and friendship. Getting back to the idea of co-godparenthood and the compadre, the concept of godparenting as a spiritually unifying act is still in existence in today, mostly outside Europe and the United States. “This institution…is known in anthropology by the Spanish word compradrazgo since it primarily survives in Spanish-speaking communities of central and southern America.” (Brain, 1976:91) The ritual of formalizing a friendship is in tandem with the Christian baptism of a child, usually whose parents are either kin or acquaintances of the friends, and the two becomes the child’s godparents. Brain goes on to explore friendship norms of several different twentieth-century cultures outside the Western world:

In many other parts of Africa twins are the best of friends, and best friends becomes twins…In southern Ghana, friends who love each other marry, the ‘husband’ paying the brideswealth to his friend’s parents. In Latin America, a friendly tie between two men may be enhanced by performing a Christian rite of baptism over a tree… (P.10)

In this ways, friendships in different societies are publicly recognized, and social norms encourage such close relationships to be treated in ways analogous to marriage or kinship. The African norm of treating best friends as twins, for example, stems from the idea that those born as twins were soulmates that had found one another in a past life, and non-related best friends in this life will go on to be born again as twin siblings. These societies formally recognize and affirm the love between two friends.

This sampling of different social norms, past and present, concerning the significance and recognition of friendships as primary relationships may now be turned to compare with the social constructs of contemporary Western concepts of nonsexual love and its place in society. One may note how our society’s view of friendship is reflected in the language. When distinguishing among individuals in one’s life, it is not uncommon to hear one say, “We’re just friends.” The term “just” is synonymous with “merely,” and “only.” This implies that nonromantic (that is, close but nonsexual, to be more exact) relationships are marked by a certain degree of inferiority. Disinterested but loving relationships, no matter how close the two individuals may be, are simply not viewed as being primary sources of emotional fulfillment.

Also, there exist rather specific behavioral norms concerning “appropriate” conduct in nonsexual relationships, especially with regard to males. Friends exhibiting similar to the “romantic friends” of the 1800’s, for example, would be thought to be overly affectionate with one another. Generally, society is more accepting of physical affection between two females than between two males. Any physical expression of love beyond a hug or a chaste peck is now considered within the realm of sexuality, and in same-sex best friendships is implicit of homoerotic undertones. Men especially are socialized to feel uncomfortable even forming intimate friendships, and male friendship has more or less evolved into a sort of association more accurately thought of as comradeship. According to May and Strikwerda (1996):

Male friendships often resemble the relationships between very young children who engage in “parallel play”… They don’t really interact with each other; they merely play side-by-side…Some traditional male experiences have led to a form of friendship that may pass for intimacy—what we call comradeship… Comrades are not necessarily intimate friends, for they are often bound to one another as generalized others, not in terms of who each is as a unique member of the human race. (P.81-83)

How can we account for this grave discrepancy in what current Western society deems as acceptable expression of friendship? The answer may lie in certain massive changes in norms, especially those dealing with gender stratification and interaction, which have occurred since approximately around the start of the twentieth century, and were reconstructed and developed upon for the last hundred years or so.

Great economic shifts brought on by the Industrial Revolution ultimately helped lead to a disintegration of the “separate spheres” of the 1800’s, allowing for a new, freer accessibility to interaction with the opposite sex. It was also around the beginning of the twentieth century that Freudian theory debuted. The underlying theme to Freud’s psychoanalysis is the theory that sexuality is the most basic drive, a force lurking deep and almost always unnoticed in the subconscious mind. He claimed that the drive for sex dictates every thought, emotion and behavior in the human mind. While such radical notions were not exactly embraced by the general public (indeed, the popular response is one of repulsion), such a blunt look at human sexuality got people thinking. There began to be changes toward a greater acceptance of the role that sexuality plays in human lives, a new fascination, even preoccupation with its association (and dissociation) with love among other emotions. This gradual change helped open the door for two Sexual Revolutions in the twentieth century. Post-Industrial Revolution commercialization and urbanization of the 1920’s made for an appropriate setting for a shift from courtship to sexual expressiveness in dating. And later, in the 1960’s young people argued in favor of free love as a means to enhance one’s soul, as they’d managed to convince themselves of the link between the concepts of sex and spiritual enlightenment. It is little wonder with such a new emphasis on sex, and a hyper-awareness of sexuality, that the idea of “true” love became almost completely inseparable from sexual desire. Sex could now stand alone, but emotionally fulfilling love needed the sexual component. Platonic love, friendship, has by this time become insufficient thanks to the newly installed norm of emotional monogamy—that is, recognizing only one individual, nowadays a sexual mate, as being one’s true and only source of real emotional fulfillment. One person (at least, one at a time, so mates may be had in succession, but not all at once) was to provide everything to be desired in life: emotional connection, empathy, lifelong devotion, sexual fulfillment… Since platonic relationships cannot fulfill this expectation, they have since become marked as slightly inferior relationships. Being someone’s close friend is being the “next best thing” to the supposedly superior role of being their lover.

This hyper-awareness of sexuality also helped factor into the discrepancy with male friendship, which we discussed earlier. While these massive changes were occurring throughout the 1900’s, the feminist movement and fight for gender equality was also helping to break down the old patriarchal society of the nineteenth century. Quite suddenly, women began taking up new roles in the workplace, and altering their involvement in the household. It has been argued that this mounting threat to patriarchal power began to pose a threat to masculinity, and as a sort of unconscious counter to feminism males began to attempt for a renewed differentiation between the sexes. An affirmation of masculinity became manifest in public behavioral norms:

…in late twentieth-century U.S. culture, the cluster of behaviors and qualities that situate men in relation to women include the now well-known litany: (hetero)sexual prowess, sexual conquest of women, heading a nuclear family, siring children, physical and material competition with other men, independence, behavioral autonomy, rationality, strict emotional control, aggressiveness, obsession with success and status, a certain way of walking, a certain way of talking, having buddies rather than intimate friends, etc. (May, et al. 1996:98)

These behaviors provided a kind of checklist that allowed for men in the twentieth century to reaffirm their gender identity, which had been threatened by feminism. A decisive factor in the formation of many such behaviors and qualities was a fear of latent homosexuality. If anything threatened male gender identity, it was the perceived gender “betrayal” that homosexuality implied. As Hopkins (May, et al 1996:99) notes, “Homosexuals, intentionally or not, directly challenge assumptions concerning the relational aspects of the binary categories of sex/gender, and as such threaten individual identities.” So, if male homosexuals blurred the lines of sex and gender men so ardently wished to defend, then it is not surprising that much of the “masculinity checklist” is an effort to avoid the latent sexuality, and therefore latent homoeroticism, in friendships that Freudian theory had made infamous. These constricting norms of masculinity make intimate same-sex friendships quite difficult. Whereas women need less to worry about maintaining stoicism in friendship, since they are supposed to be the emotional “touchy-feely” types, men must be socialized into surrendering a great deal of their emotional freedom, for the sake of keeping masculinity and femininity well defined, and quite separate.

It is for these reasons I believe U.S. society has been emotionally stunted, in a way. By repressing platonic friendships in favor of seeking out supposedly all-fulfilling sexual/romantic relationships, we cut ourselves off from many potential sources of emotional fulfillment. Friendship is too often pushed to the side, and the concept of emotional monogamy severely limits one’s emotional resources. Quite unlike many societies past and present, contemporary Western society simply does not recognize friendship.

Friendship in our society is strictly a private affair. There are no social rituals, no public ceremonies to honor or celebrate friendships of any kind…no clear lines mark the beginnings of a friendship; often none mark the end either… But friendships usually just fade away…friendship is a -non-event—a relationship that just becomes, that grows, develops, waxes, wanes, and, too often perhaps, ends, all without ceremony or ritual to give evidence of its existence. (Rubin, 1985:4-5)

Our lack of customs to mark the development of friendships indicates just how little stock U.S. society places in these relationships, as opposed to bonds of romance or kinship, both of which include various ceremonies of recognition and honor.

What, then, may we predict about the future of friendship? It seems as though we are stuck at a crossroads of sorts. One path shows that certain norms concerning masculinity and gender roles are slowly being broken down, encouraging men to become more “sentimental” in a way, and worry less about being seen as “womanly”; the other path is paved with views and expectations that marginalize friendship more and more, threatening it with obsoleteness in a world preoccupied with the value of sex. The first offers a gradual acceptance of males expressing their emotions forming intimate relationships, especially with one another. If the metamorphosis of norms continue in this vein, then it is likely that both sexes in our society will become far more comfortable with the notion of disinterested, asexual love, and allow friendship to once again be recognized for the significance it truly bears. The other path implies a continued preoccupation with sexual relationships as the most fulfilling bonds individuals my share. This is an age of sexual liberation, and so it is no wonder that our society may continue to get hung up on sexual love as the decisive factor in the ranking of personal relationships. It is difficult to say which path our society is more likely to take. However, both profoundly affect our ability to make and maintain intimate, nonsexual relationships, and it is for this reason that Western society must look upon friendship with new eyes, and reevaluate the incredible significance it has on our lives.

[Jayann]

EDIT: Decided to remove the Works Cited, since, granted all my quotations, without it my paper is harded to plagiarize. I hope.

[gambit_boi]

cheers to you, jayann! very thoughtful, a pleasure to read. i was especialy impressed with the christian friendship cementing ceremony- i wish it was something we still had. many gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies follow a similar guideline, and the former could probably be seen as a precursor to the latter.

i've read a little about romantic friendships elsewhere. check out the google category under society:relationships:friendship:history, you'll find a lot of interesting material, some scholarly, some more for fun.

thank you for posting this dear, and stay well!

[Jayann]

Hey, thank you! I'm glad someone finally responded to it (I think a lot of people were scared off by the length and density :?).

Thank you for the suggestion, I'm checking out several of the pages now. I see a few that would have helped me write the damn thing, I think! Ah well. I enjoy reading about this stuff anyway. Thanks again!

[fluffy_hime]

Julie, that was AWESOME!! I can't believe how well you explored the different dimensions of nonsexual friendship.

This is possibly my favorite part:

It is little wonder with such a new emphasis on sex, and a hyper-awareness of sexuality, that the idea of “true” love became almost completely inseparable from sexual desire. Sex could now stand alone, but emotionally fulfilling love needed the sexual component.

It's said so well!

Anyway, great job! (Oh, did the end of the third paragraph get cut off?)

(Freud was a cokehead. No wonder he had such strange ideas. ^_^)

[Jayann]

*blushes happily* Thanks fluffy_hime! This paper was a helpful exploration for me personally. I was trying very desperately to produce evidence that sexless but fulfilling love is possible, by showing that the friendship-romance system isn't binary but is in fact a continuum. Yes, world! There are shades of gray!

And by the way, I don't know what the deal is with that one unfinished sentence. I checked the saved document and apparently that's the way it was. Presumably (I wrote this paper in April, so I can't rightly remember) what I'd meant to say was something alone the lines of, "Close friends could achieve a kind of spiritual heightening that could not be reached through casual friendship nor through marriage." Something like that. Dunno why it's cut off like that. *pouts*

Anyhoo, glad you enjoyed it!

[VivreEstEsperer]

Haha, we're all taking Soc classes. you, me, avenguy.... everyone... that's awesome. and we're all writing papers about asexuality in our soc classes, lol.

[Cate Perfect]

Well, Julie, once again, we've something in common. I have been looking for a romantic friendship ever since I first read about them in a book called 'Surpassing the Love of Men' by Lillian Faderman. There's also a book called Invisible Relations by Elizabeth Wahl, which is about the way relationships between women have been perceived in various places in the world throughout history. It's academic, but fantastic. It's also interesting to see how certain opinions haven't changed over time, like how men in the Victorian era didn't believe two women could even have sex because 1)they weren't interested in it by nature, it was men who initiated it and 2) sex was when one person penetrated another person, which is why homosexual men were persecuted and lesbians weren't heard of.

I love that story about Queen Victoria when said she didn't believe lesbians existed because why would they? The thing that gets me was how pervasive the 'women are sexless' theory was in society then. So much so that one of my favourite romantic couples, the Ladies of Llangollen, lived together and slept in the same bed for thirty years and it's highly unlikely they ever had sex. They were always going on about how depraved they found gay men to be and were very conservative people and in their journals and letters they never mention anything that could be construed as a sexually intimate relationship, though they were the best of friends and shared a life. When I first heard of them I thought, 'THAT'S what I want!' Though it's entirely possible that they would have been intimate if anyone had told them they were capable of it. Left on my own I probably would have never figured something like that out. The first time I heard about sex I thought, 'Now WHY would anyone want to do that?' Come to think on it, I continue to feel that way.

Anyway, even after lesbianism was 'discovered' by men [they realised a woman could be pleased by something other than them] the men still didn't mind so much because the women were dependent upon men for financial support, as women couldn't make enough on their own to support themselves. [Music Cue: 'Sistas are doin' it for themselves!']

So when the ladies began making their own money and men were threatened by the fact that a) women didn't need them for financial support and B) women could gratify one another physically THAT'S when suddenly lesbianism was evil and no longer just a cool thing for men to watch. Down with homophobes!

Anyhoo, all this to say that I love sociology, it was one of my favourite classes in school and I think it's interesting as all get out how society shapes and defines us. Like how the ancient Greeks most likely wouldn't consider themselves to be homosexual, though sex between men was commonplace. I remember reading somewhere the diary of some nobleman in Greece and he said he didn't like sleeping with boys, but he felt he had to because it was expected of him. Love that!

I could go on all evening, but I won't, I just love this sort of thing. Great paper, Julie!

Cate

Ps: this is my 300 post.

[Jayann]

300th post???

*confetti falls from the rafters!!*

Congratumulations!! You've just won...a brand new car!

*curtain lifts to reveal...two rats and a pumpkin.*

:shock: Er. Dammit. Stupid cheating fairy godmother. See if I ever shop Prince Charming Honda again.

...Anyway! Please, do go on. I love to learn more about romantic friendship. I think it's terribly fascinating. I do believe Lillian Faderman's Surpassing the Love of Men was among the number of books I scoured for information. Boston Marriage was actually not as helpful as I'd originally hoped, since many of the testimonials did contain some sexuality. But then, these women identified as lesbian (or in some cases bi, I think) and not asexual.

Speaking of which, I'm kind of annoyed I didn't get to tackle the topic from a more asexual perspective. But there's so little text out there that stating references would have been nearly impossible. Anyhow, I'll end here as I've got the sinking feeling that I'm not making a whole lot of sense.

Cheers!

[Gorax]

I finally read your paper without skipping any lines. It was informative, especially to people like me who don't know jack shit about history hehe.

I don't really think a ceremony for friendship is necessary though. I mean if you love someone as a friend, you shouldn't have to prove it by throwing a big event, and vice verca.

Having regular parties would be allright though, I suppose ^^

[wombat]

Well....I'm eventually going to read that monster of a thing....one of these days when i finally get some free time where i'm not responding to posts.

But from what i can tell, we agree on a bunch of things julie! Romantic non-sexual Love.....*sigh*....the thought makes me happy.

But i'm still in college....and i still need to find somebody...and i will...it's just that COLLEGE! AAAHH!!!

Oh, and i think that marrige is WONDERFUL! Its a tradition that has been done for thousdands of years....and I love celebrations! LOVE EM! So, i personally don't see where your coming from gorax. But...different strokes different folks....and so on and so on and SCOOBY DOOBY DOOBY!

But yeah!

HAZAA! to you Julie! Great job!

[Artemis]

That was really great Julie :D