A term new to me, from today's Chicago Tribune. Anyone ever heard of it?
Was she a dear friend and key financial supporter of pioneering social reformer Jane Addams [winner of the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize]? ... Were the two women lovers? ... Addams and Smith ... spent more than 30 years in a loving and committed relationship. What historians say they don't know is whether the partnership between Smith and Addams was sexual. ... Addams lived in an era when it was not unusual for women to set up house together in lifelong partnerships, sometimes called Boston marriages.
Boston marriage - an intimate friendship between two women often maintaining a household together
Apparently today it's used for women who live together in a non-sexual relationship. Wouldn't it be like a roommate then? I assume there's nothing wrong with having a roommate if you're not married. Here's another site that brings up another phrase that's new to me: "lesbian bed death."
After this post, I wrote a limerick for OEDILF on Boston Marriage. In my author's note I had mentioned that these were Lesbian relationships that were sexless. The question then arose whether "Lesbian" infers a sexual relationship. What do you think? The Answers.com article that I linked to above indicates that Lesbianism doesn't necessarily require a sexual relationship.
I think it probably does, as the dictionaries often cite homosexuality as a synonym. But I am not sure.
I am not qualified to comment on lesbian relationships for several reasons. However, there have been several instances of strong friendships between "confirmed batchelors"* that were definitely asexual.
* "Confirmed batchelors" are probably a dying breed nowadays, although they used to be relatively common, especially in academia. At one extreme it meant someone was homosexual, but stayed in the closet; at the other, the person was more or less asexual. In the middle would be those who, for one reason or another, had been unlucky in love.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
As far as I know, Sappho the Lesbian had male and female lovers, as was common in her time and social class, so "lesbian" seems inaccurate to describe a strictly homosexual or a strictly nonsexual monogamous relationship. How about "Sapphic" instead? I'm being pedantic and prescriptive here, but that's how I see it!
Originally posted by Kalleh: After this post, I wrote a limerick for OEDILF on Boston Marriage. In my author's note I had mentioned that these were Lesbian relationships that were sexless. The question then arose whether "Lesbian" infers a sexual relationship. What do you think? The Answers.com article that I linked to above indicates that Lesbianism doesn't necessarily require a sexual relationship.
I think it probably does, as the dictionaries often cite homosexuality as a synonym. But I am not sure.
I think if we remember that lesbian/ homosexual relationships are parallel to heterosexual relationships, it is easier to see that the label does not define how much or whether overt sexual behavior is expressed between the two individuals. It implies an attraction with a certain intensity, that if given full expression would probably result in some sort of sexual activity. By contrast, how about a close friend who is the same gender as your dh? You wouldn't call it a heterosexual relationship. If you hadn't met Mr Right yet, you might set up house with such a friend for convenience and company, but wouldn't refer to the relationship as anything other than 'friendship' and 'roommates.'
How about Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett? I guess if there were enough relationships like that one, we'd need an expression like "Boston Marriage" for an opposite-gender "intense" friendship!This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,
Posts: 2605 | Location: As they say at 101.5FM: Not New York... Not Philadelphia... PROUD TO BE NEW JERSEY!
