Love, Valor, Commitment
My mother emailed me this article from Yawning Bread (it's pretty old, but still worth reading, seeing as it's not about current events so much as a musing on gay relationships).
Here's an excerpt:
The analysis is simplistic (YB is a master of the art of the simplistic but appealing argument - I don't mean that in a snarky way. It really is an art), but it brings up a point that I think is well taken. Marriage is about more than love. In fact, often it is about something quite different from love, namely "commitment".
The problem is, when you look at how "commitment" is enforced in a marriage, it starts to look awfully coercive. Now, I'm not against a little coercion now and then, but... well, we'll leave that for another post. Anyway, the essay's worth reading, is my point.
Oh, it also made me wonder if relationships last longer in cities where apartments are expensive. Stay together for the rent control. There's a great personal story about that over at Mortification & Leisure, btw.
CAVEAT: feminists among us (I include myself) will notice some pretty back-asswards attitudes, especially in the first part of the essay, about relations between men and women, and the totally male-focused analysis of heterosexual marriages is offputting to say the least. I promise it gets better in the second half. I just thought I'd warn y'all.
Here's an excerpt:
Let’s face it. Gay men’s relationships are completely different [from straight marriages]. Don’t kid ourselves. They’re not built on love and commitment. They’re love or nothing. What commitment there is comes out of love. You can’t pull commitment out of yourself (let alone out of your partner) in the absence of love. There’re no children, there is no legal basis to shared property, and no fear of alimony. Love or nothing.
...
It’s no wonder then that gay male relationships tend to fall apart within a few months or years, not because their love is more hollow, but because quite often for men, whether gay or straight, that's about how long love lasts. Nevertheless, despite this knowledge, the pain is terrible still. And then the misery is compounded by comparing ourselves with straight marriages that seem to last forever. Anything more than 10 years is forever. In fact, we’re not comparing like with like, but we don’t even realise it. It’s not that the majority of straight men remain in passionate love for ten years. They just get used to the wife, and enjoy the compensations of children, comfort, security and social esteem. If we want to compare, then compare how long we remain in love with how long straight men remain in love. Don’t compare ourselves to a piece of paper called a Marriage Certificate.
The analysis is simplistic (YB is a master of the art of the simplistic but appealing argument - I don't mean that in a snarky way. It really is an art), but it brings up a point that I think is well taken. Marriage is about more than love. In fact, often it is about something quite different from love, namely "commitment".
The problem is, when you look at how "commitment" is enforced in a marriage, it starts to look awfully coercive. Now, I'm not against a little coercion now and then, but... well, we'll leave that for another post. Anyway, the essay's worth reading, is my point.
Oh, it also made me wonder if relationships last longer in cities where apartments are expensive. Stay together for the rent control. There's a great personal story about that over at Mortification & Leisure, btw.
CAVEAT: feminists among us (I include myself) will notice some pretty back-asswards attitudes, especially in the first part of the essay, about relations between men and women, and the totally male-focused analysis of heterosexual marriages is offputting to say the least. I promise it gets better in the second half. I just thought I'd warn y'all.
posted by manoverbored at
1:47 AM
4 Comments:
Having comprised 50% of two long-term (i.e. 5+ years) relationships, & an exponentially greater number of... well, let's say "short-term relationships," that sounds better, I can say with absolute authority that I still don't know what I'm doing, which is why I tend to default to support of the widest possible array of options.
Of course, as more gay couples adopt kids & buy homes together, establishing "commitments" external to their relationships, we'll see how different homo/hetero long-term couplings really are. Are the traditionally-observed differences between these relationships based in the "nature" of being gay/straight, or in society's "nurture" of stable, long-term socio-economic partnerships?
So when do we get that post on coercion, eh?
By
Erik, at 12:19 PM
For me, I tend to default to thinking it's all nurture unless proved otherwise. The YB article leaves it unstated.
As for the coercion post, I'm working on it. What are you going to do, twist my arm and spank me? :)
By
manoverbored, at 5:25 PM
The art of simplistic but appealing argument has consistently shown itself to be somewhat snarky on its own. Passive aggressive comment on other people, passive aggressive comment about one's self/community, then override that all with aloof authoritative voice on the subject.
Not that any of us are guilty of that. ;)
But seriously though,
I definitely agree that YB's writing has a lot of frightened machismo that tends to pit gay male sexuality against a 2-dimensionally defined str8-norm while, though not even in this case, paying lip service to women entirely. It's maddening, but then again, I have to commend Adrian for being so outspoken a gay rights activist in Singapore to begin with. Which is not to forgive his ill-devised rhetoric, but rather to acknowledge his shortcomings while also presenting some of his successes to put him in a more "as he is" type of light.
Otherwise, and I have become increasingly aware of this in my own journalism/activism, perhaps it is misdirected anger?
By
shinenigan, at 9:29 PM
I have to commend Adrian for being so outspoken a gay rights activist in Singapore to begin with.
True true. I very much admire him. And I really do think there is an art to writing simplistic and convincing arguments. It's not something just anybody can do well. It's very tempting to notice a bit of complexity, which then gets you started down the endless road of "problematizing" which degenerates into Avoiding The Topic.
Just because you write simplistic essays doesn't mean you think simplistically, or even that you personally reached your conclusions with simplistic thinking. After all, there is such a thing as rhetoric and persuasive writing.
Otherwise, and I have become increasingly aware of this in my own journalism/activism, perhaps it is misdirected anger?
Whose anger, mine? I suppose it could be. Although I'd want to know what "misdirected" means. If it's a question of "priorities", then is it not ok to hold gay writers accountable for sexism while there is a war on in Lebanon?
By
manoverbored, at 10:13 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home