I was reading Leslie Lung’s book Freedom Of Choice when the answer to this question occurred to me. It was asked at the CANA forum sessions, and it was asked on this blog comments, word for word. So let’s answer this question by exploring the meaning of these three words used: “loving”, “sexual”, and “monogamous”.
On “loving”
First of all, we have to ask the question: what is love? Is love something that is discovered or something that is invented? The word ‘love’ in the English language is quite insufficient to describe the different kinds of love. C.S. Lewis, in one of his books, describes the four kinds of love there are.
Philia is a strong bond that exists between people who share a common interest of activity. It is the kind of love that exists between two friends that have something in common. C.S. Lewis explained that this kind of love freed the participants in this friendship from self-consciousness, because the more they were looking towards something beyond or above themselves, the more those who were looking towards that thing with them were welcomed with the same sincerity, which freed the relationship from jealousy.
Storge is the love and fondness for persons that is formed through familiarity. It is most commonly found between family members or people who have otherwise found themselves together by chance. But because it has the appearance of being “built-in” or “ready made”, as a result, people have come to expect, even to demand, its presence, irrespective of their behaviour and its natural consequences.
Eros is the mutually-respecting love between male and female that finds its ultimate expression in the sexual act. There is good eros and bad eros. Good eros promotes appreciation of the beloved regardless of any pleasure that can be obtained from them. But eros can be corrupted into blind devotion. C.S. Lewis warned that “love begins to be a demon the moment [it] begins to be a god”, and he warns against the danger of elevating eros to the status of a god.
Eros is also oriented towards life; bad eros towards death. Freudian psychology refers to it in terms of libido, and is the life instinct innate in all humans. It is the desire to create life and favours productivity and construction.
The Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines it as “the sum of life-preserving instincts that are manifested as impulses to gratify basic needs (as sex), as sublimated impulses motivated by the same needs, and as impulses to protect and preserve the body and mind also called life instinct. Compare it with the definition of death instinct: an impulse to withdraw or destroy, working in opposition to forces urging survival and creation (life instinct).
Agape is the unconditional self-sacrificing love that Christ has for men, and that Christians are called to have for one another. C.S. Lewis recognizes this as the greatest of loves, and sees it as a specifically Christian virtue.
There are other descriptions of agape in Wikipedia, but I think Leslie Lung’s test for agape in relationships is simpler. He wrote: If you are not constantly preoccupied with each other; if you can allow others in your friendship without being threatened; if you can give each other space to grow even if it means moving out of your friendship; if you can withstand physical temptation and can live forever without sex; then congratulations! You have transcended from humanity to divinity.
Which kind of love do two men (or two women) in a “loving”, “sexual”, and “monogamous” relationship have? None of the above definitions of love fit perfectly. So it’s probably not love that they have, but something else that is mistaken for love. As to what that is, I’ll explain what further down in this article.
On “sexual”
The sexual act concerns our sexual organs. A cursory examination and reflection on human sexual organs shows that they have been made for one another, both in terms of form and function. There is no need to further clarify what “the sexual act” is, because there is only one act using genital organs that can be described as truly sexual – when two persons unite both their sexual organs in a sexual union at the same time. It is an act only possible between a man and a woman. Other kinds of genital acts that try to pass off as sex need further clarification to differentiate it from “the sexual act”.
In the words of Leslie Lung in his book Freedom Of Choice: Two men having sex is like two unscrewable bolts putting garbage into places meant for garbage out. Likewise, two women bonding together in bed is just a couple of nuts.
[I personally would have used another analogy, but these words do come from a man struggling with same-sex attraction, so I think he's more experienced in this area than I.]
So the relationship between two men (or two women) is not “sexual” either, not in the true form of the word “sex”, since there isn’t any real sex taking place in the relationship, just genital arousal and genital activity. A more accurate term to describe the relationship is that it is a “genital” one.
On “monogamous”
The word “monogamy” means: the condition of marriage to one wife or husband at a time. In other words, two people can be in a monogamous relationship only if they are married to each other, and one of the essential definitions and characteristics of marriage is that it be between a man and a woman only.
So the relationship is not “monogamous either”, since the two men (or two women) are not married to each other. Or rather, “monogamous” is not the right term to use to describe such a relationship. A more accurate term would be “exclusive”.
What kind of relationship is it really?
So if two men (or two women) in an exclusive relationship with each other are not in a “loving”, “sexual”, and “monogamous” relationship, what kind of relationship is it? Using the substitute words, we have two men (or two women) in a genital and exclusive relationship that is… what?
Leslie Lung explains that such a relationship is one in which the participants have emotional dependency. I looked around and found this good article (by Exodus International) on emotional dependency, but I will use this one from Catholic.net:
An “all-out dependency” is a love that quickly degenerates into a sentimental attachment that prevents you from really getting to know each other. Signs of such dependency:
- you talk for hours on the phone, and cannot wait till the next call;
- if the call does not come you go into a crisis, thinking your friend does not love you;
- you think you must do everything together;
- you plan your daily schedules to be in near constant contact.The logical extension of this immature dependency is undue sexual intimacy. You end up as two beings turned inward on each other in every respect.
This last line on “two beings turned inward on each other in every respect” is where the “exclusive” part comes in. “Exclusive” does not mean only having one partner, it also that the relationship excludes everyone else.
Another symptom of emotional dependency is possessiveness, such as when the emotionally dependent person encounters high levels of jealousy when that exclusive relationship is threatened by the appearance of a third party. This is a characteristic of the exclusive relationship.
Feelings of romanticism can also result in manipulative tricks such as sending cards, writing poetry, giving gifts, flirting, and teasing, to name a few. And romanticism should never be mistaken for love, although love can be romantic.
There is also the symptom of physical inappropriateness, which is “the mental urge to merge which usually results in the physical surge to lurch”, as Leslie so succinctly puts it. Again this is a characteristic of the exclusive relationship, as the physical inappropriateness makes other people around uncomfortable. Often, genital activity or sex (in heterosexual relationships) is used as a tool to retain a wandering party.
By now, it is clear that emotional dependency is not limited to homosexual persons in relationships, but are also present in married and dating couples. I’ve also observed some of these symptoms in my own relationships, so I’ve been guilty of it as well.
[I won't go into the root causes of emotional dependency, but the Exodus International article covers it.]
Emotional dependency can be addressed and corrected, but it must first be recognized and acknowledged. Emotionally dependent relationships between a man and a woman can be changed, over time and with awareness and effort, into a relationship that is loving, sexual, and monogamous.
But as explained above, it is impossible for two men or two women to be in a relationship that is truly “loving”, “sexual”, or “monogamous” by the very definitions of those words.
Looking for love in all the wrong places
So what avenues for love is there for persons who are attracted to those of the same gender as them, if such a loving, sexual, and monogamous relationship is, by definition, not possible for them? Are homosexual persons forbidden to find love in life?
As mentioned above, there are four kinds of love, and one of them is philia. All persons, are encouraged to form firm and supportive friendships with other men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It is possible for a person to live through life without eros (except with God, which we’re not going to go into here), but not without philia, for such persons would truly be lonely.
[For what I mean by experiencing eros with God, I've got a previous and rather controversial article here, and I continue to stand by what I wrote there.]
Even married persons must continue to experience philia in their lives, otherwise they would become lonely. And it is philia that continues to enable many tens of thousands of celibate people around the world to lead wonderful and fulfilling lives. One clear sign of emotional dependency is the lack of philia in the life of the persons, because emotionally dependency causes the exclusiveness that the persons in the relationship has. Philia is prevented from developing (or continuing) because of possessiveness.
Since this is a Catholic blog, I should add that the Church calls all persons to chastity, which in short is: “abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage, faithfulness to one’s spouse within marriage”. Much has been written about this virtue, so I won’t go into it here. It should be sufficient to say that the word originated from chastising concupiscence which, like a child, needs to be disciplined.
Philia among friends is quite necessary for all persons to be chaste, whether they be single, dating or married.
An important point to note is that same-sex attraction does not disappear when a person gets married. The person will continue to have to struggle with it through life, but having philia in one’s life definitely helps one’s struggles and lighten the burden.
I would also like to conclude this article by recommending that Leslie Lung’s book is a must-read for all. It really gives a good insight into the experiences and feelings of persons with same-sex attraction (important for those who do not have friends with same-sex attraction), and contains many life stories filled with hope and freedom (important for those struggling with same-sex attraction).
I grabbed this off the Exodus Asia Pacific website:
FOC: Freedom of Choice is a compilation of 20 true-life Singapore stories of freedom from sexual bondage. This stunning collection explores a web of interpersonal issues like dating, infidelity, gender identity, sexual orientation and features short commentaries with answers to frequently asked questions. it is available in hard cover, soft cover, and paperback.
I can’t remember the price of the book, but I think it’s about $20 plus postage and handling. For local orders, contact lungs@singnet.com.sg, and for the orders from the Asia Pacific region, I think you can contact info@exodusasiapacific.org.
[I'm not actually done with the book yet. I've only read two stories so far, but it's already left a strong impact. I should be done with it in 18 days, since I read one story every night before going to bed...]
Filed under: Chastity, Codependency, Culture of Death, Culture of Life, Homosexuality, Love, Relationships, Sex | Tagged: agape, emotional dependency, eros, freedom of choice, monogamy, philia, storge
