08 December 2007

Love / Valor / Compassion

to those posts that sit unpublished because the blogger can't quite perfect it I humbly suggest we surrender

I’ve been spending some time trying to perfect a post about the necessity of gay relationships for gay men. The basic premise was the gayer the man the more necessary the gay relationship. The inverse was also true. The straighter the man the more necessary the straight relationship.

It was getting too long for one post but not quite long enough for two posts. I tried to trim it but every paragraph seemed necessary.

Then it struck me. I didn’t need any fancy arguments at all. Just a premise that played off the basic, ingrained human experience we all know so well.

Love and Companionship are critically necessary experiences for all men.*

Love and Companionship are two things that can't be replaced by anything. Or rather, nothing is a true substitute.

Neither casual acquaintances, nor home teaching, nor Straight Boot Camp, nor Legos™ will ever truly substitute that basic human requirement.

For men only Love and Companionship will do.

*Lesbians should swap each occurrence of "men" with "women." At least, that's what they usually do.


good tune


drex said...

Completely unrelated to your post, one of my favorite OC Remixers, Reuben Kee, died in a freak dragonboating accident in Singapore. Made me very sad.

playasinmar said...

I know. Read the bottom of my last post.

Abelard Enigma said...

I love Legos. When I was in The Netherlands on business, they had Legos toy stores where you could buy a box of just blue Legos (or any other color).

Although, I must admit, I never considered Legos a substitute for love, valor, and/or compassion. Is there some sort of kinky underground that I'm not aware of?

[əɪ̯ wʌndɹ̟] said...

I don't know... Legos might just do the trick.

btw, it's valour.

One of So Many said...

I love Legos. I think I may have to unpack the box of them I have stored and teach my daughter how to play with them. Now, I just have to keep them away from my son's mouth...

Abelard Enigma said...

btw, it's valour

If you're British.

Chris said...

Or Canadian.

playasinmar said...

Can we get a Canadian to verify that?

Jake said...

What if you use Legos to build your dream man? Does it count then?

playasinmar said...

To many sharp edges in places to indecent to mention.

Beck said...

Back to the subject... Gay men need gay relationships. The more gay, the more the need - no substitutions!

I am a gay man. I need gay relationships! I am not leaning heterosexual at all. Yet I'm in a heterosexual relationship. But I still need gay relationships.

Not to be Clintonian here, but I guess it depends on what "is" is when discussing what "gay relationship" is. :)

Abelard Enigma said...

Gay men need gay relationships. The more gay, the more the need - no substitutions!

This reminds me of an ongoing discussion I am having with my wife. Her position is: If it's wrong for her (who is attracted to men) to have a platonic relationship with another man then why is it OK for me (who is attracted to men) to have a platonic relationship with a man?

playasinmar said...


It matters not what the meaning of "is" is. Anything can be abused. Anything can go too far. Relationships aren't meant to supplant the marriage. If they do they are wrong.



I have had the "Can Married People Have Non-Married Friends?" conversation as many times as I've had the "Can Mormons Have Non-Mormon Friends?" conversation.

I think the answer is easily "Yes, so long as you don't abuse it." And where must the trust-level be for a spouse to think the other is sleeping with all their friends?

Abelard Enigma said...

where must the trust-level be for a spouse to think the other is sleeping with all their friends?

It's not necessarily a question of trust. It's a question of appearances. We are to avoid the very appearance of evil; therefore, two gay guys hanging out doesn't 'look good' - or so the logic goes.

I might buy the argument (I myself have used the 'appearances' logic in other situations); except, applying the logic in this way also precludes me from having a relationship with another woman (even though I'm more into guys) - a married man having a relationship with another woman doesn't 'look good' - which I agree with, where my wife and I disagree is applying the logic to two gay men. Especially two men who are closeted and, by all external appearances, are not gay. If I 'appeared' gay then there would be other issues at stake :)

playasinmar said...

Well then, what's the advantage of appearing straight?

Post-It Boy said...

I do think that gay men need gay relationships. I will agree strongly with that point. However, I think it depends on the person what KIND of relationship that is. Whether it involves sex or is non-physical.

What appeals to one might not appeal to another.

Interesting blog. I just came across it and have enjoyed reading some of your archived posts.

playasinmar said...

Thanks, Post-It Boy.

I'll return to posting in Jan. See you then!