Welcome, Anthony Rapp! (part four) — Page 125

Yes. Because it's not. about. sex. I mean, if you had a straight couple who slept in separate beds, what would you say about that? "Oh, verge of divorce, so not in love." But... these characters were claiming that they could still function and be in love. They just wouldn't "hump like teenagers."

I think where I'm getting tripped up with this discussion is that... the point the play made was that this is a concept that... the play claimed to be exclusive to homosexual males (okay, and bisexual/pansexual males, I think); you can compare it to other 'groups' so to speak, but you cannot apply it to them, or count them as open relationships in the same sense that you'd have a hetero open relationship, because the stakes are different. If you view them as the same and all comparable just because they're open, then the point trying to be made in that play just sails right by. I'm not saying I agree with it or I know it's the truth, because... I certainly am of no authority to make that judgement, but, I think you have to be careful when talking about stuff like this with regards to not being too sweeping in your generalizations.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:30 AM

That's what I'm saying. I mean, there are a lot of layers involved in these ideas of separatism and diffrentiation that go back to like, "early" activism moments. You can't, if you're going to subscribe to those things, project your *personal* ideals on it, if you're really going to accept that there might just be fundamental differences. And, I think I do believe that there are -- though obviously not to the degree of being dissociative.

Bottom line is that... if you took anything from that play other than "wow, Alan Cumming kissed Cheyenne Jackson and that was so, so, so so hot!" you should be cogniscent of the fact that you're looking at the relationships portrayed there as prototypes for reality -- and that ... this is going to get messy, but that you're looking at them as a straight female. And, the reason this is going to get messy is that I hate the "you don't understand" claim, but I hate it in the sense that sometimes there are people who want support, but they want to hand pick it, which is another issue entirely. *However* -- you're looking at this with your personal, both experiential and biological, so to speak, perspectives and schema. That's really, really important. It's an entirely different mindframe.

Inexperienced.

My alarm goes off in six hours. I am going to hate myself in the morning.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 02:44 AM

It's 2:45 in the morning. Give me a break.

The truth is it's something I've thought about before I saw the play. It's interesting to me that a particular culture is more for the idea than others, but it's not like...I saw the play and thought oh, I could apply this to my personal life...it's something that...I've just thought about from time to time. And the play didn't really change/affect my thoughts/feelings on the matter.

I think we're in different mindframes, which is my fault from jumping to discussing something in a play to discussing a similar idea that sometimes pops up in my mind, really not trying to comment on the play at all.

---

I'm not saying the play was meant to change your mind on the issue of open relationships, because it's claiming that there is a biological difference that leads to a big difference in what people are willing to accept as a cultural norm. It's saying that in order to change your mind, it would have had to make you a gay male. It's not about changing your persepctive on the matter, or make you okay with having a relationship like that, but about opening you up to someone else's and, in this case, the reasoning behind this, and at its simplest, making comment on the fact that that's the way it is.

I'm not saying we're in different mindframes about the issue, but that, say, yours is probably very different from most gay guys you're going to meet... or, you know, a married, clearly-not-straight, sexual enigma of a man who has more than one "boyfriend." I mean that because of what I said above, you can't really project some of the other stuff you're considering onto that, and put them together, because they're separate and you're looking at fundamental differences in the way the relationships work -- and are "allowed" to work.

Personally, I wasn't unaware of the concept of "acceptable sleeping around," but I never really understood so much of the logic behind it.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 09:32 AM

I'm confused.

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but I'm trying to say that what I was saying...really doesn't have much to do with the play. It's just things I've thought about in the past. And it's interesting to see this new spin on it, but I'm not like...trying to take what I saw and apply it or really anything like that. I'm just thinking of concepts that I've thought about before. I'm sure I view it differently than it is in the play, and from someone biologically different from me in real life.

It's a known fact we expect much more from a marriage now than we did years ago, and that's one of many reasons for the higher rate in divorce. So from time to time I'd think about that. And I'd wonder if both people could accept less(which realistically I understand is very rare), could they be happy? I don't think a happy relationship could result without intimacy or commitment, so then I wondered about passion, and is it at all possible for a marriage function and result in somewhat happy people if they stayed together despite not feeling so passionate about each other.

As with most things I spend too much time thinking about, I'm not really trying to provide an answer as much as think about the question. I agree that a gay man's answer would be different from a straight woman's and even probably a straight man's.

Maybe allowed is the key word. Again, I see how you're saying different people may think of it being allowed differently, but I'm taking a situation where if people who you wouldn't think it would be allowed, and for them to allow it would be going against the cultural norm, could it work? Maybe the answer is no. Maybe the answer is it's silly for me to think about it because realistically it would be quite rare for both people to allow it. Most of the things I think about tend to be silly for the reason that I put on conditions that simply wouldn't happen.

Still, thinking about this stuff beats analyzing how my friend said hello to me in the hallway and if she's mad at me or not. Stupid Jr. High...

ETA: Wait, I thought a bit more...maybe I'm not understanding. Maybe you're trying to answer the question I posed and your answer is either no or perhaps but due to these differences you're saying the situation would be different than what's shown in the play. Alright, I see. That's a valid answer.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 11:20 AM

I understand what you're saying, S=D and it took me a while, but I think that makes sense, and I agree.

Not in a very wordy mood so I'm not going to ramble when I have nothing really to say.

---

but I'm trying to say that what I was saying...really doesn't have much to do with the play. It's just things I've thought about in the past.

Right. I get that.

And it's interesting to see this new spin on it, but I'm not like...trying to take what I saw and apply it or really anything like that. I'm just thinking of concepts that I've thought about before. I'm sure I view it differently than it is in the play, and from someone biologically different from me in real life.

Yeah, but that's my point. If you're taking this and putting the "permissible open relationship" spin on something that you might potentially be in, then I think you're missing the point. I mean, you're going on about heterosexual marriage, and I understand what points you're trying to make, but you're still doing it under the umbrella of this open relationship issue addressed in the play, in terms of "well, how would this be okay in a straight relationship?" It's about different. cultural. norms.

A married man is... not straight. He sleeps around. But not with other women; the people he sees outside of his marriage are men. More than one at any given time; and these aren't just people he'll screw once and have that be the end -- these are people he's in a relationship of some degree of committment with. And there, it's acceptable.... ish. Perfect example.

If anyone posts a name, I will skin you alive.

Yes, a lot of the time it's based on really specific circumstances, like things so basic as trust, and yeah, you also get to have these relationships that because of the openness are free of certain stresses, but I, as a straight female, sort of think "well, it has to create a ton of stress, too!"

Funny that S=D brings up QAF; I heard people bring that up in comparison during some conversations I heard following the play. Similar concepts, in some ways.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 11:02 PM

Hmm, is Queer As Folk a good show? I never watched it.

ETA: Maybe not.

A married gay man is a whole...not different, but specific situation. I totally agree there is nothing comparable to that.

I guess I understand what you're saying. If an open relationship were to be heterosexual, it just would be nothing like what we saw in the play, and it's difficult to understand what it would be because of cultural norms.

---

Updated On: 6/21/06 at 11:47 PM

You people are posting long things that I am much too lazy to read tonight. Shame on me, but man! Long posts people! Amazing discussion, I guess. :)

Anthony love.

---

I'm not quite sure I'm fully following you--can you explain a bit more?

---

I disagree S=D, I think the way it was written, Justin and Brian lost *all* of what made them individuals specifically because of their relationship. Why did Justin keep giving up on all of his art ventures? To come back to Brian. Why did Brian stop being the club-kid-man-whore he was? Because he had to come home to Justin every night. They weren't allowed to grow because they *had* to be in this relationship and couldn't make any compromises on that, so they compromised the rest of their lives in the process. Honestly, there's no reason that Justin and Brian should have been together past the first season; it was totally about the fans. The British version was infinitely better and more realistic in that regard.

Don't get me started on analyzing TV (especially that show) here. Screw theatre, that will always be my first love and I can go on for days about it.

---

Skittles, do you watch Lost?

Talk about analyzing a show...

---