Romantic Friendship
Filed Under (friends, moho musings) by theimpossiblek on 17-03-2008
“Thus nature has no love for solitude, and always leans, as it were, on some support; and the sweetest support is found in the most intimate friendship.”
- Cicero
Romantic friendship has withered away. It’s a wraith, a ghost of what it used to be. And that makes me very sad indeed. It has negative implications for women and homosexuals, I think.
Up until the 1900s, romantic friendship was viewed in a positive light. Women could hold hands, write each other love poems, even kiss. Two women who shared an intense friendship were expected to display their affection- if they didn’t, they were labelled as “cold”.
The same could be said for male friendships. This is actually a topic I want to revisit in detail, because so many figures I admire shared same-sex romantic friendships. (The list now includes Wordsworth and Coleridge, perhaps even Jesus! - seriously!)
Keep in mind, however, romantic friendship does not include or condone sexual behavior. Sexual- or genital- “displays of affection” were considered scandalous, criminal, even impossible between women because females lack a phallus. (Of course, we have found ways around this today…)
By 1925, sexologists and society in general stigmatized romantic friendship. Suddenly, physical affection was constrained to erotic love. Hand-holding and kisses between members of the same sex was automatically perceived as “homosexual behavior”. And in a society where heterosexuality is the norm… well… that’s not good news for romantic friendship.
I don’t condone sexual liasons between members of the same sex for religious/ethical reasons, but I find the desire for close relationships (aka romantic friendship) completely healthy. If anything, I think it should be encouraged. But society has slapped its homophobic labels on both associations- it fails now to distinguish between the two. Especially between men. Which sucks, in my opinion. Two men going out to dinner or the movies have a decent chance of being viewed as gay- or at least, suspected.
For women, I’d say the decline of romantic friendship is a huge step backward. Sure, friendships between women are still acceptable. But in most cases, they’re transitory at best. If one woman gets married or starts dating seriously, the friendship is compromised. The ties of friendship are weak- much weaker than they used to be. And in the end, what kind of message does that send? Women appear “liberated” only as long as we act like men- and yet, we are increasingly sexualized and subjected to their erotic whims.
You don’t have to compromise any prospects of future marriage for the sake of a romantic friendship. In the Renaissance, men continued their deep friendships even after they married women. If anything, romantic friendship should compliment future relationships. They elevate both parties, spiritually and emotionally.
A friend once confided she was glad I moved closer because, “as great as [her husband] is, he makes a lousy girl friend.” Yes, I will concede that a man and women can complement each other in a marriage. But I also believe wholeheartedly that same-sex friendships and romantic friendships are also essential. It’s a tragedy, I think, to see them in the decline.
“Romantic” friendships? Has someone other than you used this term somewhere? Can you expound upon the usage? I guess I can understand viewing them that way to an extent (a female friend of mine spoke of “friend crushes” where you are all giddy about a new friendship and want to spend all your time with the new friend; I guess you could call that a “romanticized” friendship), but I’m not quite sure I think of “romantic” the same way you are using it here. I certainly don’t see it as meaning the same thing as “intimate” or “affectionate” at all.
When I was a child, I cuddled my family members and held their hands. But I certainly never thought of describing that as “romantic”. I’ve had a couple of male friends who would rest their head on my shoulder or lap or I’d rest my legs on their lap while watching a movie. One, in particular, an old roommate, in fact, would often massage my legs or back for me, and I his. And there was nothing romantic about this at all. No desire to have a candle-lit dinner with romantic music. No holding back a desire to do “more”. No pitter patter of the heart with a desire to write each other love songs (”love poems”, as you mention them, though, are understandable, I guess–letters of expression of intimate trust and affection such as we see in the Bible or between Joseph Smith and his brother?).
Some of the outward displays of our friendly affection were actions similar to what you might have seen between a boyfriend and girlfriend, but the feeling behind them was very different.
No doubt, such open affection between guys makes some people squirm, but strangely enough, maybe, I don’t think most of our friends thought much of it. If anything, a lot of people seemed a little surprised at first but quite comfortable with it and even admired it. Some girls actually squealed or rolled their eyes over it, but I think that had more to do with them being upset they weren’t in on it than with any social impropriety.
Most of my friendships have not been this way, of course, and before my twenties, I was very no-touchy and mildly homophobic about such things, and I disconnected myself physically from everyone around me. But a very select few friendships in my adulthood have been that way, and I find value in connecting with people physically and expressing affection in ways other than verbally, like a pat on the back, a supportive hand on the shoulder, or a leg massage. *shrug* All within people’s comfort zones, of course. It’s creepy to just go around touching people incessantly. Ew. But I think it’s a shame most guys are so afraid of it because it’s nice to feel that comfortable with your friends of the same gender, especially since there’s no worry (usually) about someone getting all emotionally wrapped up in it or falling for the other person. It’s just affection, not romance.
Amen.
Yeah, I also mentioned about male romantic friendships (even found some photos) on my blog as well. I may have written about women, but I didnt want to leave the guys out. It was elaborated further in my entries “Empty Seats”, “Picturing Men”, “Lost World” (why American men are afraid of intimacy with each other) and “Guy Love” (where two straight guys sing of their “love”.) Check it out! **winks**
J - It is very clear, from your comment, that your notions of “romance” and “intimacy” are very different. IMO, you have created a false dichotomy- but I will elaborate on that and Romantic Friendship later. I agree with your friend though- “friend crushes” are especially common in teenage women. Unfortunately, circumstances (work, marriage, etc) negatively affect “friend crushes” after high school.
Brenda - I don’t want to leave the guys out either, but I will admit, it’s easier writing from a female perspective. I really admire the citations you include in your blog- oh, and the blog itself! It’s “serendipitous”, I think, to stumble across someone who shares the same sentiments!
False dichotomy? Are you equating romance and intimacy? I’ve experienced intimacy completely devoid of romance, and I’ve experienced romance without genuine intimacy. And that assertion stands whether you define romance as feelings of “eros”, a la C.S. Lewis, or simply as “marked by expressions of love or affection”, as Merriam-Webster blandly defines it. Whichever definition you use for romance, romance and intimacy are simply different.
In the context of romantic friendship, yes. Intimacy plays an important part in these relationships. I apologize if you misunderstood and thought I was speaking of each word separately. In my mind, romance and intimacy are closely linked. They may not be equal on their own terms, but within this subject, I’d like to think they are. Does that make more sense?
Now J, I know there is intimacy without the romance (I felt lots of intimacy towards my mom, favorite teacher, family, etc.) I just simply have loving feelings towards them (be romantic with them?! No way, that’s weird eww)
I’m aware there’s also romance without the intimacy too… (a lot of girls complain that all their boyfriends want to do is kiss/hold hands, go out, and do other romantic stuff. But, girls say no “real” conversations, talking about feelings and emotions, are involved, and they feel “nothing” when they kiss him, that happens, don’t feel “connected”)
And yes, lots of people (probably 99%) equate romance with “erotic love” too.
Unfortunately, I disagree with the dictionary… Because I can have “marked expressions of love and affectionate feelings” for people. I’ll put my mom as an example. Now… (since that is the other definiton of romance according to the Mirram-Webster dictionary) does that mean I have a “romantic attraction” to my mom? That’s ewww. LOL!! What *THAT* should be called is “platonic love”.
There is a difference between:
1.) platonic love (simply loving and affectionate feelings)
2. erotic love (love mostly characterized by lust & horniness)
3.) erotic romantic love (love as well as lust/horny)
4.) platonic romantic love (explained below)
Yes, I can actually fall in love with another woman (and love her very passionately, the same as with a boyfriend/husband) just without the “erotic/sex/lust” element. In a sense, (since the sex is left out of the equation) it’d give us more “space and room”, in making our romantic love/intimate Friendship much stronger. In a way, my love for her can exceed and even surpass the love of men (even though it isn’t sexual). Yes, unfortunately this concept is very hard to understand… for most people.
As you can see, “intimacy and romance” DO ALSO go together, like [theimpossiblek] said. In fact, it’s equal in the context of romantic friendship/platonic romantic love.