Homoerotic Romantic Love

Homoerotic Romantic Love: Fact or Fiction?

Love

We begin with a quote from Plato's dialogue Phaedrus, with the more salient parts of the encomium italicized:

And so the Beloved who, like a poet,
has received true and loyal service from his lover,
not in pretense but in reality,
being also himself of a nature friendly to his admirer,
if in former days he has blushed to his own passion
at the appointed age and time,
is lead to receive each other into communion.

For Fate which has ordained that there ever shall be friendship among the good,
and the Beloved, when he has received him into communion and intimacy
is quite amazed at the good will of the lover;
he recognizes that the inspired friend is worth all other friends and kin together;
they have nothing of his. He has it all.

And when his feeling continues
and he is nearer to him that embraces him,
then the fountain of that stream,
which Zeus when he was in love with Ganymede named Desire,
overflows upon the lover,
and some enters into his mind,
and some overflows upon the lover
and some enters into his mind,
and some when he is filled flows out again;
and, as a breeze or an echo rebounds from the smooth rocks
and returns whence it came,
so does the stream of beauty,
passing through the eyes which are the windows of the mind,
come back to the beautiful one,
there arriving and quickening the passage of wings,
watering them and inclining them to grow,
and filling each other Beloved also with ever more love.

And thus he loves,
but he knows not what;
he does not understand
and cannot explain his own state;
he seems to have caught the infection of blindness from another;
the lover is his mirror in whom he beholds himself,
but is aware of only them together.

When he is with his lover,
both cease from their pain,
but when he is away, then he longs as he is longed for,
and has love’s image, love for love lodging in his breast,
which he calls and believes be not love but friendship only,
and his desire is as a desire of the other,
but weaker –
he wants him to see him, touch him, kiss him, and embrace him,
and probably not long afterwards, their desire is ACCOMPLISHED

For each is bursting with passion he understands not;
– he throws his arms around the lover
and he embraces him as his dearest friend,
and, when they are side by side,
he is not in a state in which he can refuse his lover anything.

After this, their happiness depends on self-control;
if the better elements which lead to order and philosophy prevail,
then they pass their life here in flourishing and harmony –
masters of themselves and orderly –
enslaving the vicious elements of the mind;
and when the end comes,
they are light and winged for flight,
having conquered by love all that two men can bring together,

And leave to the carelessness of others
while their bliss and joy that bring them together,
they accomplish that desire of their hearts which for many is bliss,
having taken and given to them to enjoy in the fullness of their love.

Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, I

Love makes the world go round. Love is an emotion we rarely want to "moderate" toward the Mean, preferring instead to let its passion work to its fullest. Love is obsessive, concentrating all our thoughts on this one individual. In his presence, you draw close and aroused. In his absence, your imagination fancies thoughts and ideas for when you are together. Aroused. Yes, it rose to the occasion, except no occasion avails.


You enjoy your times together. You enjoy his looks, swagger, his twitches, and other assets. You've noticed a few "downsides," but they are immaterial and unimportant. You connect after work, and barely suffer through a meal, before jumping each other's bones. You tell friends you are "booked" that evening, just in case he calls and wants to see you. He comes first to everyone else's second. You buy each other cards, candy, flower, sex toys, even under gear, and you are in the emotional heights of heavenly delights on planet earth. Homoeroticism is not only great, it is extraordinary! This may be the one?





Ain't love wonderful? Yeah! But the above description is not love. It is infatuation, perhaps tinged with lust, but this description, for all its delightful pleasures, is far from romantic love. Don't despair. We'll address these issues of Love, Infatuation, Lust, and Bonding in this our Gay Pride Month series, but love is too wonderful to let infatuations undermine it. And infatuations with lust are too enjoyable to confuse with love. Knowing which is which is itself an immense pleasure.

Passion

Part II

Two-Gather-Ness

Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, II

This post focuses on two concepts. Don't get lost in the forest for the two trees. (1) Love is an emotion toward an "object." (2) Emotions are judgments of value, "good/bad judgments," that give life its meaning.

Love Is a Many-Splendid Thing: "Object"

The English language uses the word "love" to mean many disparate feelings and emotions. We speak of "love of country," of "the love of parents and children," of "the love of Another," or "love of a friend." The "object" of our emotion, the focus of our attention -- country, parents, Beloved, friend -- distinguishes the kind of love the Greeks named pride, parental, erotic, and philial. Of these kinds of "love," clearly erotic love and parental love and friendship are among the most important, but each is very different. The difference is in the "object" of our love.

Another type of love, indeed another "object," that is widely ignored, often denied or derided, but that it is critical to our understanding of love, is Self-love. The love of oneself. Not egoism. Not arrogance. Not narcissism. But self-love: an affection, appreciation, and value for, by, and of oneself. If one cannot (= is incapable of) self-love, one cannot love another. The potential for self-love depends on the potential for other-love, and the potential for other-love depends on the potential for self-love.

The operative term is potential. If one is closed to love of self, one is closed to the love of others. It often happens that another's love feeds our self-love, fuels our self-worth, creates added self-value, and our love of another feeds his self-love, self-worth, etc. Indeed, this "dialectic" is the core of (homo)erotic romantic love. This exchange "in feeding each other love" is perfectly appropriate language to use.

Two-Gather-Ness

Homoerotic Romantic Love

Indeed, I wish to use the phrase:

homoerotic romantic love is the dialectic of togetherness,
the tension of pull and tug,
seeing the world through each other's eyes,
seeing it together.

This statement is the embodiment of the poem from the Phaedrus, which with we began. Yes, it is a mouthful, but every aspect of it is critical to understanding our homoerotic romantic love. And on this phrase we will devote the rest of our attention. This post focuses on just two concepts underlying this descriptive phrase: (1) emotions and (2) judgments of value.

Emotions: Judgments of Value

The first word is "love." For the time being, "love" is an emotion. A judgment of value. This idea is central, especially as some in the Psyche Industry devalues our valuations, by the preposterous notion that "value judgments" equals "judgmentalism." Philosophers regard this nonsense as dangerous. Values are central to life's meaningfulness, and emotions are a necessary constituent of, by, and through which judgments of values confer value and meaning. Thus, the "emotionally void" are incapable of love -- of any kind. This biological constitution of emotions giving us our judgments of values is a central axiom of axiology -- the study of human values and value judgments.



This concept is so important, that this requires some contemplation, if it is not already evident. Nothing else will make any sense if one does not grasp the relationship between "emotions," "judgments of values," "meaningfulness," and "love," and "worth." Nothing is extraneous to these five integral relations. So, I highlight them boldly:

Emotions = Judgments of Value = Love is an Emotion =
Conferring Worth = Giving Meaning

Obviously, love is only one of many emotions (pride, anger, etc.), and homoerotic romantic love is a special kind of love, but it is among the most valuable emotions, because of its great worth. And in the posts to follow, words like "worth," "value," "judgments of value," "meaning," "love" are all intertwined (this is the meaning of axiology).

So, we've arrived at two central concepts in this post:

1. Love names several different kinds of emotion, depending on its "object," which other languages distinguish, but English does not, e.g., Parent. Self. Friend. Beloved. Country.
   
2. Emotions are "judgments of value," conferring "worth," "value," "importance," "significance," etc.

Judgments of value are "good/bad" judgments (this is critical),

• not "true/false judgments" (of epistemology or theory of knowledge)
• not "right/wrong judgments" (of praxis or human action)

but judgments of value by which we approve by assent or rejection something as good or bad. (The notion by some Psyches that judgments of value are "inappropriate" may indeed say more than I wish to adumbrate.)

If you are unfamiliar with the basic conceptual scheme of human judgments, see the Shared Conceptual Scheme post (sidebar or hyperlink). We'll proceed to the next level after this post has had time to digest and absorb.


POSTSCRIPT: Two afterthoughts: (1) If one is accustomed to using the word "relationship," I would strongly suggest "suspending" its use and applicability for a time. Obviously, the "connection between any two or more entities," describes our use of the word "relationship." For the time being, it may help for readers to substitute "two-gather-ness," or "bond," which English incorporates and revises into "togetherness," rather than the vague abstraction of the word "relationship," which incorporates everything. Our focus is more specific: Two=Gather=Ness. Being together. (2) "Erotic" and "homoerotic" will be confronted in due course.

Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, III

love (n). That state of feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in concern for the person's welfare, pleasure in his or her presence, and often also desire for his or her approval; deep affection, strong emotional attachment.

Introduction: Two Caveats

I want to introduce two subsidiary concepts: (1) Dialectic. (2) Experience.

First, dialectic is literally a "diagloue" in a formal sense. If possible, I want readers to "dialogue" with (me in) these sketches, observations, and theory. That is what philosophy does. That is how philosophy does it. To dialogue, to doubt, to inquire, to question, to refine, to suspect, to contemplate, to consider, to think, to evaluate, and so forth are immensely beneficial. Argue with these comments. You'll please me (and yourself) to no end. Indeed, dialectic plays a critical function in homoerotic romantic love.

Second, experience is our only teacher. (Never forget it.) Some of these ideas may not "connect" immediately, because your experiences to date may not make them "relevant." That's great. Do not fear to doubt that you do (or do not) understand an idea. Acceptance of this fact is what experience requires. We do not start life (or our bonds) as a "blank slate" to be writ upon, but we do require experience to trigger our innate abilities.[1] It is a common experience of philosophers to make notations -- mentally or textually -- when an idea strikes them, but seems a bit foggy. Often, they will return to the notation, when additional experience gives them the necessary material to work through an idea.

Now that my "housekeeping" caveats are established, let us proceed to the topic at hand.

Pulling It Together


If you recall the earlier shared conceptual schema, you'll recall something like the following:

Axiology (Theory of Value). What do we value, and why do we value it? Good/Bad Judgments.

Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge) What do we know, and how do we know it? True/False Judgments.

Praxeology (Theory of Action) Why do we act? Which acts are better than others? Why? Right/Wrong Judgments.

Ontology (Theory of Reality) What is/are the irreducible constituent(s) of reality? Is/Is-Not Judgments.

Metaphysics (Theory of the Theoretical) What about "intangibles," such as our minds, thoughts, ideas, language, principles? All Judgments.

Drawing Two-Gather

If you recall the matrix any differently, try to conceptualize these five basic types of decision making (or "judgments") as presented here. This is condensed, so give it some time to percolate comfortably. Don't fret over the Greek words: Fact, Value, Action, Reality, and Theory are perfectly suitable (and their respective "judgments").

Fitting "Love" Into the Scheme

From the previous post, recall these two basic ideas:

1. Love names several different kinds of emotion, depending on its "object," which other languages distinguish, but English does not, e.g., Parent. Self. Friend. Beloved. Country.
   
2. Emotions are "judgments of value," conferring "worth," "value," "importance," "significance," etc. Love is a principal emotion of great significance, and therefore, worth.
   

Hopefully, you see that homoerotic romantic love involves all five of the above "judgments." We are "facts." If we are not facts, nothing is. We "value" certain ideas, and homoerotic romantic love tends to be one of them. If we have not yet experienced love, we know of others who have (or profess they have) and we are open to its possibility. The emotions we experience are the "act" of dynamic two-gather-ness. And, one "reality" none of us doubts, is the intense pleasure that human sexuality, affection, appreciation, and self-love is able to produce in other-love.

Those who put all these ideas together -- in a process of two-gather-ness -- are engaged in

the dialectic of togetherness, the tension of pull and tug, to see the world through the other's eyes as he see it through ours.

The Process

We now have all the necessary tools to pull the preceding description into sharp focus. Dialectic, from above, is a "dialogue" in the formal sense (as opposed to "casual" sense). The formality of the dialectic is what brings homoerotic romantic love into focus as a distinctive value (as opposed to a "casual conversation"). But dialectic, by its very nature, is not static. Dialectic is dynamic. (Repeat until memorized.) Dialectic is the formal process of constant change (dynamics).

The contrary belief is often the principal mistake "lovers" make. They assume falsely that they have "arrived," when factually, homoerotic romantic love is an embarkation and departure point, not a destination point at which a couple arrives. And the dynamic process is ever-renewing itself in a "forward thrust" of commitment to "dialogue formally in a two-gather-ness for the indefinite future." Hopefully, you "see" in these words

the dialectic of togetherness, the tension of pull and tug

as an ebb and tide, a give and take, a journey into the future and the presence of the moment, in all its vacillations and oscillations that is called "life." This "journey" in the dialectic of two-gather-ness is constantly being revised, renewed, re-evaluated, and re-discovered in a "forward" thrust (direction of fit), built upon previous experience.


The Commitment

The two of you are "going two-gather" life's experiences along the roads and byways of life (that's plural, if you missed it) with a formal commitment to the possibilities and to fulfill the promise: To "pull and tug" at each other, to ebb and flow into each other, to give and take from each other, to journey and reflect with each other, in a joint process -- in an action, a very challenging and wonderful human action -- that only beloveds can take. The formal commitment to undertake this process, to act "two-gather," to embark on this adventure, to share in each other -- both for the moment and the indefinite future -- is the heart and core of homoerotic romantic love.

Experiences of Two-Gather-Ness (Togetherness)

You may have noticed the absence of certain "ideas" often associated with "love." Very little mention has been made of sexuality, trust, fidelity, relationship, communication, loyalty, monandry, polyandry, and many of the other "ideas" often associated with homoerotic romantic love. (You'll come to regard these ideas differently, or so I hope.) Each of these ideas have their place -- subordinate to the process, to the formal dialectic, to the joint adventure, and to the shared journey, which, of necessity, must come first, and the commitment to proceed.

Whatever these ideas (or "ideals") bring to your joint journey, to your dialectic "two-gather-ness," will come into focus, if needed, as the need arises. The first priority is establishing each other's mutual commitment to the process and its possibilities that the dialectic of togetherness requires. To undertake this journey of "two-gather-ness," each of you must both be open to all sorts of possibilities, vulnerabilities, unexpected vacillations, unpredictable oscillations, that are your foundational expectations.

Experience Each Other

For the present, take stock of yourself, of him, and of the feelings, emotions, pleasures, joys, desires, that are evoked as of great value. (If not valued, the commitment, the process, and the formal dialectic of togetherness cannot proceed.) He is the "object" of your judgment of value (and presumably you are his). As you formally dialogue "two-gather," your bond will either solidify or fall apart, which neither of you can predict. Rather than "look to the future," enjoy the process of experiencing each other in the present moment, vulnerable to each other's "nakedness" (mutual self-disclosure), and to all the vulnerabilities this "nakedness" requires. Don't "hedge your bets" quite yet.

Summary

In the next post, we'll address these subordinate "ideals" and their role, if any, in the homoerotic romantic bond of beloveds. We will also look at some of the "tools" couples have found useful in enhancing their dialectic of togetherness. For the moment, I ask you to focus on the emotions, the values, the feelings, the delights that all these metaphors evoke. Indulge in him, he in you, and experience each other in two-gather-ness. You will change each other's life. Because change is the irreducible constituent of reality (i.e., ontology), so your facts, values, and actions had better be secure in the feeling, the value, the emotions, that (have, or will) launch your adventure of formal commitment.


Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, IV

Introduction: Part IV

Vitally, one must understand the "five different types of judgment" (or "decisions") we make in of our shared conceptual schema. This non-ideological template of how we humans make "decisions" and/or "judgments" will not only enhance the clarity of our minds, but it also fosters our well-being in human flourishing, rather than the mere day-to-day survival.

Recall, this "matrix" of shared conceptual schemes is itself without controversy, because it articulates our types of judgment, not the judgments that they make. No dogma or orthodoxy "lurks" behind the the matrix like a Phantom of the Opera behind Christie. Those three basic judgments are naked for all to see.

"Shared" & "Two-Gather"

However -- and whatever -- the dogmas and irrational beliefs one chooses for himself, in choosing his "Another," and in each other's joint journey two-gather, the shared conceptual scheme of the philosophical template/matrix provides an excellent basis for understanding each other, our worlds, and ourselves. When complexity overwhelms us -- and it tends to occur -- bringing the matrix into focus clears more dead rot in the shortest possible time.

Rather than serving the superstitious and subversive ideologies, template, drives, that personal hubris from both sides have butchered beyond any rational belief, the matrix is itself without judgment. It simply is. As we complete the "core" idea of homoerotic romantic love (this post), never hesitate to introduce the matrix into any of your dynamic affairs -- including the complex dialectic of togetherness of pull and tug in the two-gather-ness of two whole persons in love.

The "Vision" Thing

Up to this point, we have discussed "love." It's a pretty great emotion. But we have yet to capture "romantic love." Here is where metaphors must take us to the finish line. That is because ordinary language is not up to the task, so that the central aspect of romantic love -- homo or hetero -- must be achieved by metaphor (or figurative language) with our final focus on the clause highlighted in blue type:

the dialectic of togetherness, the tension of pull and tug, to see the world through the other's eyes as he see it through ours.

In many respects, this "vision thing" is the easiest to explain, because the metaphor works so well. So, here we go: Take a look at something. Now, put sunglasses on. It changes the view. Put blinders on. It narrows the view. Now, put on patches. It blinds our view. Drop a drug. It alters our view. Close one eye; the other gets a different slant. How we see is affected by the "lenses" we see through.

The Two-Gather "Lenses"

How we see the world is itself a complex dynamic. How our Beloved sees the world is an equally complex dynamic for him too. Thus, our ability to see (i) our own world through his lenses, and (ii) his ability to see our world through his lenses, is a phenomenon that has no name. "Perspective" only suggests something I am describing, but it falls far short. Thus, only metaphors work.

This reciprocity of "seeing" our different worlds (i) distinctly as two distinct individuals see, and as two-gather a couple sees, is common to all persons, but only (ii) homoerotic romantic lovers are able to see also our view of the world through each other's eyes (in fairness, heterophile romantic lovers are equally capable).

Signs and Indications

One of the most common "signs" of this phenomenon is one Beloved completing another Beloved's sentence, or one Beloved anticipating the other Beloved's need without a word uttered, or one Beloved acting in unexpected yet anticipated and understood ways. For Taoists, the yin complements the yang. The one balances the other, and neither surprises the other, but between the two, the flux that finishes where the other left off is where each finds a moment to start anew.

It is almost "as if" the two already "know" the other better than they know themselves. Because in an important sense: They do. They know something which only they can see, because each sees his world own (i) through his own eyes and (ii) through his Beloved's eyes -- jointly and (iii) reflecting into his perspective again.

In this ability, the Beloveds have ratcheted "homoerotic love" into "homoerotic romantic love." Romance is that "vision thing," that "perception" that looks penetratingly deep into the other's world view and his look back into ours. The best metaphor I've discovered for this dynamic is two opposite mirrors reflecting their object (endlessly "back and forth") into a virtual indeterminacy.

Romance conveys a sense of "exaggeration," which is captured metaphorically by two opposite mirrors. Romance also conveys a sense of "attentiveness," which is captured by the inescapable reflection of the two mirrors reflecting into the indefinite. Romance also conveys a sense of "excessiveness," again reflecting the perpetuity of mirrored reflections, "without end."

The "Homoerotic Romantic Vision"

Every couple I and Beloved have ever known makes the same observation (an entirely appropriate metaphor in this vision-oriented metaphor post):

They all say something like: "Our love-making follows where our eyes lead." In other words, the intense intimacy and pleasure of homoeroticism is no longer confined to the physical actions themselves, but is expressed in, through, by, and how our eyes express and magnify those sensations.




The homoerotic intimacy, while extremely pleasant, is "raised exponentially" by powers of "ten" in, to, through, and by each other in endless and perpetual reflection of reciprocity. One no longer thinks "big 10" cock" or "hot warm ass" alone, but the "physical" looks for the "deeper" significance, searches for the "farthest reaches," penetrates and plumbs the great "abyss of vastness," follows a rhythm set deep into the dance of each other's eyes, by the dazzling visual expressions mirrored in the infinity of each other's eyes -- with every erogenous zone super-charged on the highest strength.

This extraordinary feature is both empirical and metaphysical, that is, it can never be captured by language, by mimesis, by representation, by film, by imitation, but only by actually genuine experience, no film, canvas, stone, or other media can capture. The intense and immense "dialectic of two-gather-ness" in the throes of homoerotic passion takes the erotic dialectic to other levels we cannot articulate, and would not try, for reducing its immensity to our puny minds.

Homoerotic romantic love becomes so intense, so extravagant, so superabundant, so heightened, so immense, that the ecstasy become almost ethereal, intensely pleasurable as it is immensely intangible, as our thoughts and bodies are so immersed in the sensual, erotic, mental, and emotional delight, far beyond either one's ability to express in ordinary language what the body expresses in extraordinary language, much less try to contain, or explain, every nerve ending tweaked to "on" so high, we don't know where we are in the experience. We are lost in each other. We find our expression through each other. Each other lifts us, exalts us, and elates us. Our hearts beat so wildly, our skin perspires with so much sweaty passion, our eyes sparkle brighter than any star in the heavens, that, as we approach the crescendo -- in the arc of orgasm -- we cannot control our transplantation to other dimensions. We would even dare to try to control it? Are we crazy?

Conclusion

Indeed, homoerotic romantic love is characterized by everything exaggerated, attentive, excessive, and superfluous that we can imagine. It is the only time our emotions as well as our physical delights are "so over the top," we can only echo the Greeks in their ineluctable delights. Neither of us would think of "moderating" such intensity and pleasurable ecstasy, lest we "come down from the heights of ecstatic intimacy."

Why? Not simply because it feels extraordinarily fabulous -- which it does -- but because it is inexhaustible. Other desires and drives can reach a "limit," but never romantic love. The notion of "loving too much" is incoherent. The conception that we "should deflate" all our energies is unthinkable. Our only aspiration is "higher," "stronger," "deeper," "more intense."

Some people mistake this abundance as "unconditional love." Alas, they are exceedingly wrong. Horribly wrong, preferring Myth to Emotion, insisting Metaphor connect them to a Myth never within reach. The English language uses words: Effusive, extravagant, superfluous, generous, liberal, love most definitely, but never "unconditionally." No more pernicious and destructive idea has beset humankind than the notion of "unconditional love."

Homoerotic romantic love is effusive, superabundant, overflowing, extravagant, and all the other words of "excess" we can marshal. If it becomes "unconditional," you and he have problems.

Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, V

You're So Beautiful

"We'd love to have you spend the weekend with us."

"I love chocolate."

"I love my family."

"I love you, --."

"I love New York."

Love, Luv, Heart, Passion

We use the word "love" to do a lot of functions in order to express our desires, wants, needs, affections, passions, and affiliations, as if a single word, the English "love," could shoulder the burden of these different meanings. It is not only poor shorthand, it is linguistic abuse of the mental kind.

Mixed Metaphors?

Desires Basics

Human desire, or eros, is the greatest single motivation for our actions, second only to our survival instincts, which is almost always coupled together. "I'd love a five-course French dinner right about now," expresses our need for food, our desire for a type of food, our particular want of how much of it is delivered, and a certain affection for the great culinary arts that are typically French. If we are of European ancestry, the French appellation may also express our affiliation of a bond of Eurocentrism.

Differences with Distinction

The Greeks were not so reductionist with hoping a single word could carry such a heavy load. They recognized that all loves essentially spring from our most basic desires, and their word eros is meant in several senses: both desire (in a generic sense) and sexual desire (in a specific sense) and homoerotic passion (in an even more specific sense). They recognized that one's love of family, such as parents and siblings, is a filial and parental love, which is distinct from a romantic love. We've subsequently applied the filial loves to friendships and even to affiliations, such as cities: Philadelphia - the City of Kindred Love. (philia is the root word of a-filia-tion = affiliation). However, we have a biological-hardwired philia for parents, family, and extended family, while friendships and affiliations are of a different character than those with genetic ties.

Desires, Flames Fires

The third type of love the Greeks named is sexual desire and emotional passion combined. The notion that "sexual desire" could be detached from "emotional passion" was too primitive to their consciousness, a separation in which the Victorians detached the former with the latter, and in which Freudians detached the latter from the former. In the Greek consciousness, such detachments were obvious signs of defect (vice), the subject of several Platonic dialogues. Some authors name this desire "sex," as in the acts of passionate coitus, from the Latin secare (to divide). We'll use "homopassion," as in the conjunction of "(homoeroticism) + (passion)." Homopassion is sexual, but is not "sex" (to divide, as in reproduction).

The fourth type of love the Greeks named agape, the Latins named caritas, which Christianity took up as one of its monikers with seriously dubious results. In the words of Saint Paul, then these three abide, faith, hope, and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. Well, sort of: faith is always more important in Christianity than charity. (See, Note 1)

The Greatest of Faith, Hope, & Charity?
or
Hate! Self-Absorption, & Personal Salvation

Charity is really not love at all, at least not in the family resemblance of sexual desire, appetitive desire (e.g., for food) or kindred affection (e.g., brotherly love) much less homopassion. The closest we can come to express a modern meaning of agape is "universal benevolence" or "goodwill toward all." Some people prefer to use "altruism" or "reciprocal altruism," but only the former fits the original Greek sense.

The desire behind such sentiment is that of one advancing each other's mutual well-being, not an out-pouring of a particular emotional depth and commitment like that of homoerotic passion, parental love, or kindred affection and loyalty.

Note: Christians pilfered agape for their specific use of a non-eucharistic love-feast of the "brotherly and sisterly" type, or Platonic love type, not of the erotic, much less homoerotic, type. Indeed, the prototype for the Christian agape is Plato's dialogue the Symposium, which oddly discusses the virtue of homoeroticism that Christianity considers the archetype of idolatry.

A Burden Unloaded

Asking a single word "love" to carry the burden of so many different senses is not without some problems. It may seem efficient shorthand, but it often does more to conceal our true desires and motives than to elucidate them. For example, how many times have we said "love" and really meant "desire" or "want?" How many times have we said "need" and really meant "want" or "desire?"

Bleeding Heart? or Deviant Tart?

Lust, Infatuation, Passion, Love?

While desire is clearly the operating motive behind each of these expressions, the desire themselves are not on par with each other. I may "want" a Philip Patetek watch, but I do not "need" one. I may "need" to eat in the next hour or get weak and pass out, but merely "wanting" to eat is insufficient to a more pressing and urgent need. I may "desire" or "want" a homoerotic playtime with that handsome stud I've had my eye on, but I don't "need" or "love" him.

I Lust Him?

Ain't Fucking Luv?

Austin coined a phrase that is quite popular: Linguistic Abuse. He asked the fundamental question, "Must we mean what we say?" And, he answered, in the affirmative. To do otherwise is deliberate obfuscation, confusion, illusion, and displacement. Psychologist Wayne Dywer simply amplified on these observations from the angle of emotional conflict. Looking at these basic words, how we use them, what we really mean when we do use them, and why we should not accept substitutes will prove enlightening to most readers. (Answer: Ain't Fucking Luv? No, replies Gilbert Ryle: Category mistake.)

Love: Emotion, Myth & Metaphor, VI



Hardly a day passes when the issue of vulnerability arises. We humans yearn and desire an object, a career, an honor, an achievement, an intimacy, a bond, and all sorts of opportunities that entail various types and degrees of risk, including the risk of being wounded, physically or emotionally hurt, or both; the liability to be damaged or harmed, particularly from the aggression or attack of another on our self-esteem. Our vulnerability to being harmed emotionally, of loving but not being loved in return, of putting ourselves "out there," only to be assailed by another, especially someone who we regard and value, is perhaps the dominant risk-aversion men in general, and many androphiles in particular, avoid at all costs.

And yet, without taking the risks, without allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, only precludes the very opportunities we desire and yearn after. The dynamics, sometimes called "risk-reward analysis," engages in the mental measurements of how much risk and vulnerability we are willing to accept in order to achieve the reward of our desires and yearnings. In many respects, it has many analogies to the "cost-benefit analysis," in which individuals assess the costs to achieving the benefits they seek -- always with more benefit than cost, and likewise, always with more reward than risk and vulnerability. Are we not demanding as a species?

Other animals have similar mechanisms, nearly all of which are more instinctual than the more complex human dynamics. Humans, in addition to bringing the risk-reward dynamic to fore, bring more than instinct, we also bring reasoning, emoting, feeling, intending, desiring, and self-esteem. Perhaps, these added complexities, which make human risk-reward vulnerability seem so difficult, are the reasons we find diverting some of those risks into our pets. Most pets rebound from the risk-taking vulnerabilities, without the "baggage" so many humans bring to a similar exchange.



I wish to explore only a few features of our vulnerabilities in the risk-reward dynamics, using those particular aspects in hopes that readers will freely adapt the lessons learned from these situations to other situations. And, the first feature we must address is the vulnerability of the attacks on our self-esteem. For in a general sense, all our emotional vulnerabilities and our risk-averse behaviors, regarding matters of homoeroticism and romantic love, are protective first and foremost of frail senses of self-esteem. If otherwise, we would never hesitate to take those risks that supposedly make us vulnerable.

But our own emotional insecurities, our own sense of personal inadequacies, or even our own sense of superiority, if risked too much will hurt too much, and so we choose to take our risks more carefully. Some of us will observe the individual who does not seem to be risk-averse to vulnerability; he either acts without outstanding confidence or disregard for what others think, sometimes to great success, other times as the "fool." This individual is one who does not link risk and reward, and he usually does it by one single means: Emotion void. If he comes to believe he cannot be emotionally hurt by another, he really has come to the station in life where he denies others have any affect on him at all, that is often because he is no longer "emotionally available."

The risks to this approach do have rewards, but they often come as quantitative successes rather than qualitative ones. Since no emotional content is at stake, no quality is involved either, as quality, or what we call "values," are integrally-linked to our emotions. Without an emotional component, often one well developed and nurtured, very few aspects of life will have much "value" or "meaning," as our emotions are the root source of these aspects. The fictional "Don Juan" is perhaps illustrative of the type: He's all technique, conquests, numbers, performance, and other quantitative measures. His fucking techniques seem great, but without any depth or passion, and clearly without much interest or involvement. Indeed, he'll switch to fucking another on a dime, since nothing is at "stake," no value is conferred with one encounter over another. That would require an emotional engagement.

Pulling It Together

Likewise, he feels no hurt, anguish, rejection, or feeling when his advances are declined. Nothing was at stake except another conquest, another fuck, another man, another trick. Not surprisingly, many men who were once sensitive to others, who once felt vulnerable to what others thought, who were once a bit risk averse to advancement toward others, has hardened himself from those "adversities," so only pleasure is measured, no personal qualities or values are involved. But, his surrender of emotional content to hardness carries consequences he may not want for the long haul. He may begin to find his quantity of conquests become dull and banal, just another "number" or "trick," which is rather pleasurable, but not very enjoyable. It lacks that certain "quality," value, depth, feeling, and reward that requires emotional vulnerability.

Now, the Risk-Reward Dynamic involving Vulnerability may harden itself to emotional hurt by others, but it also hardens one's emotional availability to others. For some individuals, that trade off is thought to be a "no-brainer." He can tell you all his conquests, their dimensions, their scenes, but remembers little of the individual himself, because to personalize his conquests would require him to introduce his emotional involvement, and to avoid the emotional hurt of the rejection by others, he has precluded the reward of romantic love of, and for, another. You see, dear reader, romantic love is an emotion, the one distinctly and uniquely human emotion, one which most people give high praise for it qualitative depth to life's experiences, but that depth depends on values, feelings, qualities, and aspects that quantitative pleasure-seeking with emotional- hurt avoidance, rejects.

Emotional hurts and anguishes are, in turn, the same font of emotional joys and loves. To deaden oneself to emotional risks is often accompanied by the preclusion of romantic love. Surely, something so immensely valued, through the course of human history, cannot be so devalued today in order to achieve an emotional void? But we do have that option.

The "Fit" has to Fit -- Darwin in One Easy Lesson

We have single friends who populate the entire spectrum. One insists he could never be monandrous, while another insists a single polyandry would end the relationship. Both guy are great catches. Both have had relationships. But both confess they have not "fallen in love" with the other guy. And that is the casualty with polyandrous relationships. Not that two men cannot or will not love each other, but that the next step, "in love," requires (i) commitment to grow through each other; (ii) immense satisfaction in each other; (iii) "no exit" when times turn turbulent; (iv) and a commitment that comes voluntarily to esteem each other above all others. A couple "fit" for each other works through their problems and enjoys their ecstasy, thrills at new experiences, takes consolations in old routines, and "dances in the space where their dialectic of togetherness meets." They don't become toad stools, wonderlost for wunderlust, tired and happy, because these never work.

Homoerotic Romantic Love versus Coupling

The philosopher Robert Solomon repeatedly observes that "love" in the sense of romantic erotic love is not the central glue in a bond of commitment -- heterophile of homophile; the commitment is to grow through and in and with and for each other, as long as possible, through the dialectic of togetherness, expressed through homoerotic passion, but also expressed and explored in a plethora of other ways too. For some men, the curiosity to find out whether their bond can grow better is offset by their desire for sexual variety. For other men, the lust gust wind blows stronger than any bond. The ultimate reality is that no two men, much less two men in a bond, are the same. What works for couple A differs for couple B and again for couple C. That's the way it should be.

Dialectic of Togetherness

Finally, no bond comes with the glue of slavery; the bond between Beloveds must necessarily be voluntary, ALWAYS, wherein each Beloved is the equal to and of the other Beloved; where both men are entitled to the freedom, responsibilities, screw-ups, successes, failures, forgiveness, and everything in between "to be themselves." Those who endeavor to focus on a "relationship," a metaphysical category, rather than focus on each other, are following a failed model. The two men "dance together," "glue together," "seal and bond together," but as wholly free agents WHO WANT TO, not because they think they MUST, because others EXPECT, because it is what a couple DOES. Those who erect Walls of Barrier and Enclosure, rather than a Lattice of Exposure, will be filling cracks (and no pun intended), it won't be the crack of intense homoerotic pleasure, but putty to stifle and make rigid.

Accept the Notion of "Provisional"

The bond builds itself out of the strength, commitment, creativity, comfort, and type of growth each man is disposed toward to by many years of experiences and beliefs. The only sane approach is to take each situation in the freedom, flexibility, and adaptedness that nurtures growth, rather than seek the final plateau in fixed in stone to fit a pre-ordained plan. Androphiles do well to accept the basic notion of provisional, wherein the currents, waves, and tsunamis of daily life are the norm, not static redundancy. Too many couples believe their Bond is the ultimate achievement. It's merely the state, a beginning, middle, or end. Rather a true bond is the commitment to go forward together, not as one, but as two whole, distinct, unique, and equal partners in order to grow more fully through, in, with, and for each other, in all aspects of life over time, and to express that growth increasingly more intensely and intimately and deeply. That should keep the curious on course, for when we stop being curious, we stop living fully.