Someone I know wrote on their Facebook recently, "Apparently some people in the theater don't have a gay buffer." When asked what he meant by "gay buffer", he explained, "When two guys go to the movies they leave an empty seat between them. That empty seat is a gay buffer." The idea, in case you missed it, is the avoidance of a possible perception of being homosexual. Two heterosexual male friends may not sit next to each other in a theater so they can avoid other people thinking, "Oh, look, don't they make a nice gay couple?"
Perceptions change over time. I remember in the past seeing a man with his two kids on a Saturday morning at the local Denny's. The thought was, "Oh, how nice! This father has taken his kids out to breakfast so Mom can have some quiet, alone time." No longer the case. Now it's "Oh, look! Here's a divorced father trying to 'make nice' with his kids whom he only sees every other weekend and probably doesn't even pay child support." A man and a woman out walking their baby in a stroller used to be an automatic "married", but no longer. Perceptions change over time.
It's a shame, I think, about that whole "gay buffer" idea. I get it ... sure ... but that it would be thought of in the first place troubles me. The Bible, for instance, speaks about David and Jonathan, an epic friendship. They loved each other. No one thought a thing about it. They loved each other. Only in recent times did the suggestion come up that theirs may have been a homosexual relationship. Where the standard Middle Eastern culture includes males who kiss without having a sexual relationship, now, suddenly, perceptions change and it's clearly a sexual relationship in their case because ... well ... they kissed. Yeah, yeah, I know ... the arguments are longer than that and far more convoluted, but, still, it's the same thing. The only reason the question comes up at all is because perceptions change over time.
I think men have lost something in this paradigm shift. We are allowed to shake hands -- that's manly -- but not hug -- that's gay. We're allowed to go to see a movie together, but not sit together because that might be considered homosexual. Two men crying together (like David and Jonathan did)? Oh, yeah, definitely a sign of a homosexual relationship. And the shifted (and twisted) perceptions of society dictate to innocent men how they can and cannot relate to one another lest they be labeled in unfair, unwanted, and/or incorrect ways. At what point does the good father who wants to take the kids out for early Saturday morning breakfast to give Mom a quiet few hours of rest stop doing so because he will be perceived as a questionable, part-time dad just trying to appease his children? What other good and right things do we avoid and miss out on because perceptions prevent us?
5 comments:
Here is a post I wrote a few years back on this subject of the gay buffer. This is sad I think. I read an in depth biography of Abraham Lincoln's life. When he was a circuit lawyer in Springfield he use to share a bed with fellow male travelers in Inns. I remember thinking as I read this that I'm surprised that the homosexual militants had not picked up on this as proof that he was gay... you know... applying to day's worldview to a generation far removed from our own. I have heard them contend that Jonathan was gay.
Hey, Dan, there you are! When are we going to coffee next?!
Oh, yeah, serious stuff ... yes, indeed, because they "loved each other" (and in today's world apparently one cannot "love" without "having sex") and because they kissed (because, you see, all cultures for all time have always seen the "kiss" as sexual ... you know, like they do today in Middle Eastern cultures -- NOT) that clearly Jonathan was gay. David, it seems, was likely bisexual. And it is indeed a product of this nonsensical view that "the way we see things today is the way they have always been seen."
I have a friend who has lived in another state for many years. On those rare occasions when he's in town, we try to get together. As we were tight back in the day, such an event is a big deal for us. Always when the time comes to part, but sometimes also upon his arrival, he gives me a kiss on the cheek. It always takes be aback as it's not my personal custom. My first thought is generally gratefulness that any dude would feel comfortable expressing his friendship and fondness for me in this manner. My next thought is that I hope no one thinks we're fags (sorry. that's the word that comes to mind at the time. I take it back---I'm not really sorry---sorry for that.) My third thought is that I don't really care what other people think.
I'm not really a touchy-feely huggy kinda guy, but my friend is Italian and Italians do that kinda thing now and then. My concern is that a small percentage of the population wants the rest of us to change our perceptions of such behaviors toward a tolerance for their behavior. That is, I think they it likely would make them happy to know that our perceptions about such behaviors have been affected.
Sorta reminds me of islamists affecting our behavior by their terrorism. Whereas I used to think of middle eastern people as merely exotic, I now perceive them as psychotic. Like Juan Williams, I wonder.
Another example is pants. Used to be that a guy with his pants drooping low with his shorts exposed was merely a slob. Now, it's a hip-hop dude or gangbanger.
Used to be that multiple pearcings suggested emotional or psychological issues. Now...no, that's still the same.
In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis described the Greek taxonomy of love:
- storge (two syllables): affection including maternal love
- philia: friendship
- eros: romantic love
- agape: divine love
Lewis' central point is that, except for agape, any love that becomes a small-g god immediately becomes a devil, but he affirmed the basic propriety of all four loves, in the right proportion and in the proper conditions.
At a football game with a very good friend -- a non-believer, though a thoughtful one -- I griped at the increasing ubiquity of terms like "man-date" for their sneering belittling of brotherly camraderie. Philia isn't derived from eros: it is its own thing, a type of love that appears to be more uniquely human -- more intellectual and philosophical (i.e., "platonic") than the love between mates or between generations.
Because I can only go so far expressing my beliefs with those outside the fold, as it were, I didn't take the train of thought to its final destination:
The reason that philia has been marginalized is because homosexuality is becoming normalized. It's not necessarily the case that one leads to the other, but that's what's happening in practice.
One of the underappreciated side effects of normalizing the sin of homosexuality is that it has undermined the credibility and sheer healthy normalcy of the close platonic friendship between two men.
That alone isn't worth the cost of indulging a tiny minority's deviancy.
Bubba, Marshall ...
Yes, we're being robbed.
Post a Comment