Last week I posted about Queer Platonic Relationships. That is, the pairing of two people presenting as a couple regardless of sexual intimacy involved. This is not an entirely new concept.
Wikipedia describes a Boston Marriage as the historic cohabitation of two wealthy women, independent of financial support from a man. The term is said to have been in use in New England in the late 19th/early 20th century.
Historically the pairing was specific to women, assumed to be heterosexual, however choosing to couple with a female for the freedoms it offered her lifestyle. In modern times, the structure of the dynamic still thrives, however it is no longer limited to females. Any person, of any orientation may enter one with any other person of any orientation even if those orientations or identities would appear to put them at odds. Similarly, they can occur between 2 people between whom a romantic or sexual connection could be possible, however the distinction is generally that such a connection does not exist.
These partnerships operate as platonic couplings, however as I touched on in my last post, that does not diminish the strength of their bond, nor define how they communicate love and affection for one another. Each partnership is unique to the people or persons in it. However, they do identify it as their primary partnership for love and support if not also for affection. For example, the couple will generally expect to bring each other to family events such as weddings or holiday celebrations. They wish for the same privileges that sexual couples experience.
Wikipedia reports that Boston Marriages were, in their time, a socially acceptable option for women, until approximately the 1920’s when suspicions arose about them being homosexual pairings. I can only assume this is around the time that homosexuality among women was beginning to be recognised and frowned upon. I personally have to wonder if this had anything to do with men feeling put out by the new freedoms of the working women and not needing to take a husband for financial support, and fear perhaps that they would no longer be needed!
Regardless, it happened, and women started to shy away from such arrangements under social scrutiny, because also under scrutiny was their love and affection for one another. Before such scrutiny was cast upon them, romance between women in their friendships was actively encouraged, not just accepted. It was considered “training for marriage: as girls would kiss, hold hands, share a bed and be openly affectionate. (Source)
Letters from the era, and later books such as those of Jane Austen are open examples of such friendships, with women expressing their feelings towards each other in terms we would now widely consider to be uncomfortable, if not incompatible or even inappropriate ways to express platonic love. However, in the modern day queer platonic pairings, the people involved may well share a bed, hold hands, kiss on the lips and exchange “I love you” quite regularly.
Why do we assume this makes a connection sexual in nature, and why, even if it does, is that important? As I referenced in my last post, many many marriages settle in a deeply loving but non sexual place anyway, and it isn’t the business of any outsider to know the details. If they are not having sexual relations on the dinner table at Christmas for example, why does that factor alone make them more worthy of a place around it?
Perhaps it is our obsession with monogamy that makes it seem more worthy? Because queer platonic relationships can and do stretch out into the realms of open marriage or polyamory. This is because although they deem each other to be their significant life partner, they often do entertain romantic or sexual connections outside of the partnership. I can only deduce that our inability to separate love and sex plays into this.
As a society, the assumption tends to be that if a person is having 2 relationships, one of a sexual nature, and one of a non-sexual nature, that the sexual one trumps the non-sexual one in some way, but why is this? Why is it unthinkable to maintain both relationships with equal importance, or even to give the platonic connection priority? I wonder why this is unthinkable when so many studies have recently shown that women would rather isolate with their best female friend than their partner, or that we prefer the company of our friends in general! Not far behind is the new emergence of the bromance, indicating many men may feel the same way as women and prefer their own company for social interaction.
Surely we can all by now accept that even when 2 people who have the potential to become sexual are friends, based on their preferences, that we aren’t always attracted to that person and that alone is a good enough reason not to act in a sexual manner. However that does not mean we cannot love and value that person in a very high manner?
As someone who has found their identity to be somewhat ambiguous sexually, I can assure you that does not mean I have not loved, and the value of those connections has never been based on the sexual component. I believe I could live happily with a partner without a sexual component, and why that should have to be questioned baffles me. I also don’t feel I should, or that I do prioritise my husband above any of the other relationships in my life. Friendships are relationships! They are warm and loving and fun and affectionate. (Then again, it is also not lost on me that I write this blog not due to my success at friendships! haha So maybe there is value I fail to see in keeping them so separate?!)
However I know this is an unpopular stance. A Boston Marriage or queer platonic pairing may not be right for you, and that is fine. The point of this piece is to address that they exist, they are real and they matter and question why the taboo? And why it is our business how they interact to help us place them in a category we respect and understand?
Love is love. I love each and every one of my friends, irrespective of attraction or lack thereof. We should spend less time worrying about who loves who and how, and pay closer attention to those among us incapable of love at all!
❤ Love,
Your Best Friend ForNever
xx
