Re: 'Relationships'
Submitted by newgeorge on 2008-10-8 23:51:49, Wednesday
In reply to 'Relationships' submitted by Eldad on 2008-10-8 18:22:28, Wednesday
|
I thought you were referring to 'being gay' as a disability rather than 'being BL'. Even then, I would regard the wikipedia definition as a broader use of the term than I have ever come across in daily life (it may be different in USA not sure) and, while it may be just semantics, I don't understand in what way regarding BLness as a disability can do anything other than add to the gnawing sense of victimhood. On the subject of general relationships, I still feel that the clear delineation you make between 'sexual' and 'other' is not something I could possibly do in the case of my own friends! I think this is quite important because isn't one of our main problems creeping 'sexualisation' of all relationships outside the narrowest of norms? St Aelred (Abbot of Rievaulx) wrote a book back in the 12th century (I think) called 'spiritual friendship'. The whole book is really a way of coming to terms with being both 'gay' and 'Christian'. It certainly wouldnt be easy in a monastic environment! There is a lovely story that, when he was the novice master, (monks joined in their middle teens in those days) he had a cold bath installed underneath the noviciate so he could take a plunge whenever he felt the sap rising so to speak. Not sure if thats true but it shows that there is nothing new under the sun! |
Follow ups: