| |
|
Ooh thanks all.
Ex: fascinating, I will go away and dig out some Faderman, who to my shame I've never read. I did think I was probably being a little crude and, as someone who's never Id'd as lesbian, almost certainly upholding an outsider's stereotyped views. (Also, I was pretty drunk when started this thread. tt.)
And thank you, yes, I'm interested in how passionate friendship works to usefully sidestep sex in relationships; was talking to someone for whom sex isn't important or desireable, who has a partner, but doesn't have sex with them. Ze wasn't sure whether ze was happy with 'passionate friendship' as a descriptor, usually uses partner, as this indicates the importance of this person in her life... God, I love the variance of human desire...
But also in the tension with its potential for use as a repressive technology.
Especially, I would say, in same sex pairings/groups. And further, that f/f and m/m would be likely to suffer this effect for different reasons: f/f as, Ex points out, to keep women away from the ickystickiness/violence of passion - and this policing from both without and within, and men, as part of the wider invisibilising of m/m sexuality.
does anyone with more knowledge than me want to talk about how this might play out in trans relationships.
I think it has huge potential in multiple-sex relationships, as an acknowledgements of different types of connection/desire/love/path away from Harry/Sally/Bridget Jones narratives.
Flowers: interesting, yes, I think there is a connection between the potential for expansion of the passionate friendship paradigm and the 'new family', there might well be overlap. Perhaps the differences are in the genealogy of these concepts?
And yes, I'd consider us to have aspects of 'passionate friendship' and 'chosen family', if it was me you were referring to(or sfd?). You were one of the people I mentioned in discush over the w/e (was with the London people we met tt Pride) |
|
|
