Jump to content

Menu

Have you told your kids what "straight' and "gay" mean in reference to people?


poppy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Huh? There is plenty of literary evidence against this statement.

There is love poetry from the Ancient Greeks that very clearly speaks of romantic love. And early medieval song, too.

 

Yes I do not understand this insistence that stuff like sexual attraction or romantic love is new.  There may have been various ways to join people in marriage (sometimes irregardless of their feelings about it), but it seems a little nutters to insist that sexual attraction is some sort of newfangled idea.  LOL

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I do not understand this insistence that stuff like sexual attraction or romantic love is new.  There may have been various ways to join people in marriage (sometimes irregardless of their feelings about it), but it seems a little nutters to insist that sexual attraction is some sort of newfangled idea.  LOL

 

especially on a classical homeschooling board where we should all be familiar with Greek mythology...

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idk, guys, I learned the same thing at college as bluegoat is saying - Romantic Love - or courtly love - what we'd consider 'romance' in its contemporary form - was an artefact of the courts of medieval Europe.

 

Obviously people in other times and places experienced and expressed both love and passion. I'm reading bluegoat as talking about something more culturally specific.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that marriages went down differently back in the day and that people may have had less say in the arrangement of marriage or that marriage was more like a business deal, BUT did people really not have sexual feelings then?  Or feelings of attraction?  No way.  There is no evidence that that is the case.  I imagine there was plenty of infidelity too.

Edited by SparklyUnicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joesph CampbellĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s work argues that our modern concept of romantic love is rooted in the troubadours and the rise of chivalry as a specific concept. Not that there was no love before then. The Power of Myth discusses many concepts of love, including ones which predate the 13th century troubadours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Romance isn't a synonym for sexual feelings and attraction...nor did it have much to do with marriage.

 

Romance in a medieval context referred to sets of rules governing the expression of particular types of 'love'.

 

Many gestures we think of as 'romantic' are descendants of a medieval Romance world view.

 

I'm not even talking about romance.  I thought the topic was sexual attraction (straight vs gay). 

 

I guess maybe people often don't separate the two.  I do actually...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romance doesn't spring to mind when I consider Greek mythology. There's a heck ton of rape though.

 

If Orpheus going into Hades to get his beloved wife back isn't romance, I don't know what would be.

And what about Hero and Leander?

Pyramus and Thisbe?

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

I think ppl are using romance as a synonym for sexual love, and it really isn't, so far as I understand Romance and Romantic love.

 

I don't think people are equating romance with sexual "love."  At least most people here are not.

 

Now I am wondering what "sexual love" is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢d have to say that in the day to day most people arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t conceptualizing their understanding of love, romance or sexual attraction to academic definitions.

I would tend to agree with this. I think most people kind of go with the cultural flow and rarely evaluate what sources or influences inform their ideas about what marriage means in the context of love or attraction or sex. I'm not sure that's a net positive, generally, but probably not avoidable.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course love and romance and so on have existed as long as people have existed.

 

What new-ish is the idea that marriage is about love and romance. For many years in many cultures, marriage was separate thing from love and romance and often treated as a business transaction. In today's world, marriage is ALL about love and romance. Marriage doesn't become a business transaction for most people until not having enough love and romance causes the marriage to end.

Views of marriage are still very dependent on culture, even today. There are plenty of arranged marriages in the world still.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courtly love wasn't about romantic marriages. It was about having major crushes on women you knew were out of your league. Sing ballads to the duchess and tumble in the hay with her ladies in waiting.

 

Along the way, though, it got transformed into the modern concept of romantic marriage.

 

I never said people never experienced love before that, but they didn't conceptualize it and put it on the pedestal our modern culture does until around then.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you implying that religious belief cannot be a significant element of a person's true self? Sexual attraction and sexual expression are more real and valid than religious sentiment, belief, and expression?

No, absolutely not. I was not talking about adults who have freely chosen their religious beliefs adhering to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read everyone else's replies, but I thought I'd chime in.  My children all know what the words mean because they are 23, 20, 15 & 13 :)  I can't really say when they learned the terms because I don't remember any big conversations about adult sexual orientation when they were little. 

 

When they were little I never felt the need to tell them when a man or woman feels a sexual attraction for a member of the opposite sex, that is called heterosexual and when a man or woman feels a sexual attraction for a member of the same sex it is called homosexual.  I just don't feel like it was age appropriate when they were under 10 yo. 

 

When my oldest was around 10 a lesbian couple with a teenage daughter moved in next door.  Then our dd asked, "Why doesn't Ashley (their daughter) have a dad?"  I said because "A & S (the neighbors,) love each other the way that your dad & I do and they decided to have a family just like we did when we had you." She asked a couple more questions & we used any & all appropriate terms. 

 

I guess what I am trying to say it that my kids learned the terms when it was appropriate for their understanding & their world experience.  Trying to define those terms for kids before they are cognitively ready to understand seems artificial and unnecessary.  

 

Amber in SJ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your first link:

 

It's important to bear in mind that I don't think people have changed,' said Professor Ashe. 'People in every time and culture have fallen in love, but not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way.

 

'In the 12th century, romantic love became something that was worth celebrating and exploring in songs and stories - and you only have to look at modern film and music to see that legacy is still with us.'

 

So are we talking about literature or are we talking about real life?  I thought we were talking about real life.

 

Also they seem to be focused on Western literature, while I was not.

 

Furthermore I guess the Bible and other holy books don't count as literature ....

 

If you are thinking of what's described in the Bible as romantic love, I think you are really talking about something different.  

 

The quote above is the same issue - saying that people had the same basic emotions is not the same as saying they had a sense of romantic love that was very similar to ours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with this. I think most people kind of go with the cultural flow and rarely evaluate what sources or influences inform their ideas about what marriage means in the context of love or attraction or sex. I'm not sure that's a net positive, generally, but probably not avoidable.

 

I think that's true, but I think the cultural views they've absorbed, often without realizing, define how they express and experience those relationships pretty profoundly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are thinking of what's described in the Bible as romantic love, I think you are really talking about something different.  

 

ok, so would you please define what you precisely are talking about when you use the term "romantic love"?

As long as we don't agree on terminology, this discussion is not productive.

Edited by regentrude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the way, though, it got transformed into the modern concept of romantic marriage.

 

I never said people never experienced love before that, but they didn't conceptualize it and put it on the pedestal our modern culture does until around then.

 

 

Yes.

 

And I'd like to point out to people that your original comment was about how our concepts of identities and categories related to sexuality come out of our approach to marriage as a romantic - and even a Romantic, construction.

 

This idea that who we are attracted to is really important, fundamental to who we are, a major way to understand people, comes about in part at least because that is so important to how we form our families.  THat's in part sexual attraction, but also the romantic view where we almost universally assume that marriage is the result of two people "falling in love".  

 

To the point that many people find the idea of someone marrying without that somewhere between distasteful and wrong, or at the very least a likely a bad idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so would you please define what you precisely are talking about when you use the term "romantic love"?

As long as we don't agree on terminology, this discussion is not productive.

 

Very much based on a emotional state, very individualistic, very idealized.  Often seen as having a kind of eternal element.  There is a strong element of it having a kind of ontological quality where it is a kind of fulfillment for the people involved.

 

In particular in our culture with regard to marriage we see the emotional state as leading to or legitimizing the institutional expression.

 

THat's pretty unique.  Before the late middle ages, what we'd call romantic love was usually seen as something passing or negative, certainly not something that would be a good basis for marriage or a society.  The idea that romantic love should be the normal prerequisite for marriage or deciding who should marry, or how we should think about potential marriage or even sexual partners, would not have been particularly well received.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are thinking of what's described in the Bible as romantic love, I think you are really talking about something different.

 

 

I seem to recall reading that Jacob felt rather deceived when he was given Leah rather than Rachel to marry after 7 years of labor. He seems to have had some reason for this. His preference for Rachel over Leah extended to their offspring.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the OP...

 

My kids didn't ask, and I guess I never voluntarily discussed it.  I suppose that's because I tend to think labels aren't always helpful or valuable.  Opinions and labels change, but the constant, to me (when my kids were young), was simply modeling a loving relationship and not being judgmental of others. We focused on heart-issues.  If a person had a good heart, then a lot of other things become irrelevant.  And I'm really so limited in what I understand anyway.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very much based on a emotional state, very individualistic, very idealized.  Often seen as having a kind of eternal element.  There is a strong element of it having a kind of ontological quality where it is a kind of fulfillment for the people involved.

 

In particular in our culture with regard to marriage we see the emotional state as leading to or legitimizing the institutional expression.

 

THat's pretty unique.  Before the late middle ages, what we'd call romantic love was usually seen as something passing or negative, certainly not something that would be a good basis for marriage or a society.  The idea that romantic love should be the normal prerequisite for marriage or deciding who should marry, or how we should think about potential marriage or even sexual partners, would not have been particularly well received.

 

1. I didn't know this thread was about marriage.

 

2. I don't agree that our culture is to the point where we see the emotional state as always legitimizing the institutional expression.  There are still lines most of us believe should not be crossed regardless of emotions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I didn't know this thread was about marriage.

 

2. I don't agree that our culture is to the point where we see the emotional state as always legitimizing the institutional expression.  There are still lines most of us believe should not be crossed regardless of emotions.

 

 

 

The question of romantic love and marriage came out of the discussion, if you go back to where ravin introduced the thought.

 

I am quite sure I didn't say it always legitimizes it.  We're talking about the basic cultural assumptions.

 

You could think of it in terms of self-fulfillment.  We tend to think of romantic love, being in love, as a kind of self-fulfillment for those who do it, and sex and marriage and ways of consummating that self-fulfillment for both people.

 

A lot of our weird cultural hang-ups about marriage come out of this - the pretty common idea that if you aren't in love anymore, or are not fulfilled, you should divorce and find someone else.  Any time people talk about "The One" or similar concepts, that's a romantic love concept.  Or the idea that came up in this thread that people's sexuality or sexual attraction was an important way to categorize themselves, because it defines who they can be fulfilled by.  That seems to come out of the 20th century add on which says it isn't just emotional fulfillment but that we need to be sexually fulfilled.  The way we are told we should select our spouse also draws heavily on being in love.  Even people who are pretty practical would likely discourage young people who said they were not "in love" from marrying.

 

These ideas about marriage which are hugely common couldn't exist if romantic love as an ideal basic of our primary social/sexual institutions wasn't an underlying assumption for most people.  And it wasn't an assumption for people in most periods and cultures.  Just as the logic of individualism is alien to most places and times.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of romantic love and marriage came out of the discussion, if you go back to where ravin introduced the thought.

 

I am quite sure I didn't say it always legitimizes it.  We're talking about the basic cultural assumptions.

 

You could think of it in terms of self-fulfillment.  We tend to think of romantic love, being in love, as a kind of self-fulfillment for those who do it, and sex and marriage and ways of consummating that self-fulfillment for both people.

 

A lot of our weird cultural hang-ups about marriage come out of this - the pretty common idea that if you aren't in love anymore, or are not fulfilled, you should divorce and find someone else.  Any time people talk about "The One" or similar concepts, that's a romantic love concept.  Or the idea that came up in this thread that people's sexuality or sexual attraction was an important way to categorize themselves, because it defines who they can be fulfilled by.  That seems to come out of the 20th century add on which says it isn't just emotional fulfillment but that we need to be sexually fulfilled.  The way we are told we should select our spouse also draws heavily on being in love.  Even people who are pretty practical would likely discourage young people who said they were not "in love" from marrying.

 

These ideas about marriage which are hugely common couldn't exist if romantic love as an ideal basic of our primary social/sexual institutions wasn't an underlying assumption for most people.  And it wasn't an assumption for people in most periods and cultures.  Just as the logic of individualism is alien to most places and times.

 

I'm pretty well read on the history of marriage and how much connection it has had to romance over the years and across the globe.

 

I think the fact that romance wasn't always "the" reason for marriage (and still isn't everywhere) is well known and not in dispute here.

 

The original comment by Ravin about the beginning of romance said on its face that romance did not exist prior to the middle ages.  My response to that was that I disagreed, and also that the connection between romance and marriage customs was another question.  I think Ravin then clarified that he meant romance as "the" reason for marriage is relatively recent.  So I don't think he and I are actually disagreeing on that point.

 

That said, I think you may be going a bit far (or not far enough) regarding how we feel today about needing our life to be structured, legally and physically, based on our sexual or romantic inclinations.  There are many many people who do not live in a situation that facilitates or prioritizes sexual fulfillment.  The idea that we "need" to be sexually fulfilled, that a heterosexual woman can't be fulfilled without being with a man, is actually a little backward.  Fulfillment is so so much more than sex; it does not require sex at all.  Sex for many (most?) mature people is far less important than other things we do; sexual orientation is so much less important than other ways we identify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That said, I think you may be going a bit far (or not far enough) regarding how we feel today about needing our life to be structured, legally and physically, based on our sexual or romantic inclinations.  There are many many people who do not live in a situation that facilitates or prioritizes sexual fulfillment.  The idea that we "need" to be sexually fulfilled, that a heterosexual woman can't be fulfilled without being with a man, is actually a little backward.  Fulfillment is so so much more than sex; it does not require sex at all.  Sex for many (most?) mature people is far less important than other things we do; sexual orientation is so much less important than other ways we identify.

 

Well, if we're REALLY dissecting terms and concepts... I don't think most people consider "fulfillment" to be a monolithic idea, or something that is, or even is capable of being, at 100 at all times. 

 

I know that I'd use the term "fulfilling" to describe my parenting, but I never intend for that to mean that I haven't fantasized about packing it in and running away from these life suckers!  I could say similar things about the other aspects of my life that I enjoy, bring me great rewards, and make me feel, well, fulfilled. They're not always the equivalent of hearts and rainbows.

 

Romance/sex/sexuality is a department in there. It doesn't always have to be at 100, and it doesn't necessarily always have to be there at all.  Not everyone needs to have kids to feel fulfilled, or take on volunteer positions, or homeschool, or read ancient philosophers or modern mysteries, or like their siblings, or witness a solar eclipse, or barbecue with their neighbors, or own a cat.  There's no magic formula for what does fulfill people, and I'm not even sure how common it REALLY is for people to be quite this reflective about the idea to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is a fascinating and funny example of why I usually give my kids the bare bones, basic explanation of "adult" topics when they're little, and then just listen more than I talk, and try to answer whatever questions they have.

 

Like, this particular issue is not complicated to my four year old. She understands gay and straight on her level because we are fortunate to know people who are in gay long-term relationships. If I didn't have those friends and neighbors IRL, I'd probably just use a Todd Parr or Robie Harris book. And if I accidentally tell a child that a person who actually experiences gay feelings but has chosen to live as a straight person, or who is bisexual but only has same-sex relationships, is the "wrong" thing, the world is not going to end. We can't be so paralyzed about saying the right thing that we just leave our kids in the dark, because chances are what they hear from their peers or the media is going to be even more misleading and confusing. (Or the explanation they make up: when I was a kid, for instance, I concluded that babies were made when people touched tongues.)

 

It's also easy to introduce the terms in a simple way when you first talk about sex, because not all grown-ups have sex like that, and it's not the only way babies join families. Most of us fudge the details a little when we first talk about sex-- we are idealistic, maybe, saying things like "when a mommy and a daddy really love each other"-- and we don't think we're being deceptive, just age-appropriate. That's really the best way for kids to learn about sexuality, too, I think: in the context of love and security and acceptance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree that most people don't sit down and think deeply about whether or how marriage or relationships are fulfilling - in the general sense.

 

I think that's kind of the point for me - culturally, it's so very taken for granted that it's largely about self-fulfilment.

 

And I'd say that we do tend to see the same kind of view of parenting or career.  There is a large dose of "making sure each person is able to reach his potential", even with pretty level headed people. I mean, I don't believe that in one sense, but I have to almost work to limit that way of thinking to what I judge is actually useful and rational, because it's just so much the basis of how our education system operates. And all of the stuff about following passion is deeply romantic.  Isn't that what the Romantic vision of the artist working in a garret is, really?  This idea of self-fulfillment, reaching the potential of your gifts, and even a kind of special calling from the universe that it would be wrong to ignore?  THat's an more extreme view, but we even have a lot of assumptions like that around kids activities pr sports and things.

 

I'm not sure it would be really possible to think that way about marriage or career or anything else before you start to seethe individual play a more prominent role in people's thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another topic - does anyone have any discomfort with the word "straight"?  What does it really mean?  Is it a back-door pejorative?  How do we think young kids perceive it?

 

It's kind of the opposite of kinky, isn't it?

 

I actually have never really used it, I'm not crazy about it for several reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just not true for all people. There are some gay men who date trans men and some lesbians who date trans women because they are attracted to people based on gender. And, of course, some who do not. But your answer is just not monolithically true.

 

I guess it kind of depends how you define the terms, but generally I think gay and straight have been used for sex attraction, not gender presentation.

 

I was looking for some information the other day and ended up on an old discussion thread on a gay chat forum.  Anyway, they were talking about a musician, one who's generally considered to be gay.  One of them commented that he's dated a transexual back in the 90's, and so he was at least bi-sexual.  

 

It was interesting to me that they seemed to take it very much for granted that being a gay man was about wanting to have sex with people who have a penis.  And not as far as I could see because they had some sort of hang-up about it, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall reading that Jacob felt rather deceived when he was given Leah rather than Rachel to marry after 7 years of labor. He seems to have had some reason for this. His preference for Rachel over Leah extended to their offspring.

This is one of the stories I was thinking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting to me is how many of the people on this thread know so many gay people. Statistically the number is said to be small.

 

As far as romantic love, I believe there is room for it in a logical decision making process. Choose a mate based first off of compatibility and traits and common goals that you want in a life partner. Then on attraction...and from that romantic love can last a lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just not true for all people. There are some gay men who date trans men and some lesbians who date trans women because they are attracted to people based on gender. And, of course, some who do not. But your answer is just not monolithically true.

 

And some people are specifically attracted to trans men/women.

 

There are all kind of ppl out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting to me is how many of the people on this thread know so many gay people. Statistically the number is said to be small.

 

Even the most conservative estimates are around 4% . That means one out of 25 people. (There is debate that the percentages may be quite a bit higher.)

 

Two reasons it's lower in your circle may be geographic fluctuations (gay people tend to prefer to live in areas where they are more openly accepted, and I don't think rural Midwest has that reputation) and unwillingness to disclose to an environment that is perceived as anti-gay. In other words, they may simply not have told you that they are gay. I don't know whether your religious community is particularly welcoming to gay people.

 

I did not know openly gay people when I grew up, but know more now, and my DD knows significantly  more. I think better cultural acceptance is the reason for this. Back then, more stayed in the closet.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not know openly gay people when I grew up, but know more now, and my DD knows significantly  more. I think better cultural acceptance is the reason for this. Back then, more stayed in the closet.

 

Consensual sex between men over 21 did not become legal in England until 1967 and in Scotland until 1981.  I did know three gay men when I was a child, but two of them had to completely separate their home and professional lives because they were a teacher and a university lecturer respectively, and there was a fear that they would lose their jobs if they were open.

 

Interesting background to acceptability and how many openly gay people there are: my mum was in the theatre in England in the 1950s.  There were quite a lot of gay people - within that society it was acceptable, and perhaps more gay people were attracted to the theatre because of that.

 

A story my (gay) uncle, who was also in the theatre, told me:

 

He was playing in an English provincial theatre in the mid-fifties.  One of the actors in the regular cast lived with his mother.  There was local scandal because the mother had a young live-in boyfriend.  When my uncle was invited to the house for tea, he realised that the boyfriend was actually the son's partner.  The mother had chosen to take the scandal onto herself rather than risk her son being prosecuted.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I don't know whether your religious community is particularly welcoming to gay people.

 

 

 

 

If a person is gay---according to the definition that has been used in this thread---being attracted to the same sex--and they believe that to act on that would be against the moral code they have chosen to live by....then I can see why they would not disclose that.  What would be the point of that?  So in that sense, yes I imagine I do know gay people who have just never told me.

 

However, I was actually referring to people who are openly gay and acting upon those feelings.  I don't know anyone who falls in to that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I was actually referring to people who are openly gay and acting upon those feelings.  I don't know anyone who falls in to that group.

 

That makes sense if you mostly socialise/are closest to those within your church: people within the congregation who are gay can only choose to stay silent and celibate, have secret relationships, or leave. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense if you mostly socialise/are closest to those within your church: people within the congregation who are gay can only choose to stay silent and celibate, have secret relationships, or leave. 

 

 

They don't have to stay silent on how they feel. But I imagine they would.  Just like a woman might find another woman's husband attractive but decide it prudent to keep that info to herself.  And remaining celibate is a requirement for any unmarried person who believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  A secret relationship?  Sure I guess there are people who live double lives but that is also wrong of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have to stay silent on how they feel. But I imagine they would.  Just like a woman might find another woman's husband attractive but decide it prudent to keep that info to herself.  And remaining celibate is a requirement for any unmarried person who believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  A secret relationship?  Sure I guess there are people who live double lives but that is also wrong of course. 

 

Then no wonder you don't know any openly gay people. They would not be welcome in your community and would be judged. Who in their right mind would choose a religion that makes them feel that they are wrong?

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then no wonder you don't know any openly gay people. They would not be welcome in your community and would be judged. Who in their right mind would choose a religion that makes them feel that they are wrong?

 

Right.  Who would join a religion whose beliefs are contrary to their own.  That would be irrational for sure.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then no wonder you don't know any openly gay people. They would not be welcome in your community and would be judged. Who in their right mind would choose a religion that makes them feel that they are wrong?

 

While that might seem to be what you'd assume, there are plenty of gay people in religious groups, of their own free will, that have fairly strict rules about marriage and sexual activity.  Being a high Anglican they are fairly thickly spread round, and much the same is true in Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...