Romantic friendship: Difference between revisions

A '''romantic friendship''', '''passionate friendship''', or '''affectionate friendship''' is a very close but typically non-[[Human sexuality|sexual]] [[Interpersonal relationship|relationship]] between [[friend]]sfriends, often involving a degree of physical closeness beyond that which is common in contemporary [[Western world|Western]] [[Society|societies]]. It may include, for example, [[holding hands]], [[cuddling]], [[hugging]], [[kissing]], giving [[massages]], or [[sharing a bed]], without [[sexual intercourse]] or other sexual expression.

The term is typically used in historical scholarship, and describes a very close relationship between people of the same sex during a period of history when there was not a social category of ''[[homosexuality]]'' as there is today. In this regard, the term was coined in the later 20th century in order to retrospectively describe a type of relationship which until the mid-19th century had been considered unremarkable but since the second half of the 19th century had become rarer as [[physical intimacy]] between non-sexual partners came to be regarded with [[anxiety]].{{sfn|Faderman|1998|pp=231-313}} Romantic friendship between women in Europe and North America became especially prevalent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with the simultaneous emergence of [[female education]] and a new rhetoric of [[sexual difference]].{{sfn|Rupp|2009|p=127}}

The study of historical romantic friendship is difficult because the primary source material consists of writing about love relationships, which typically took the form of [[love letter]]sletters, [[poem]]spoems, or philosophical essays rather than objective studies.{{sfn|Faderman|1998|ps= ''passim.''}} Most of these doand notseldom explicitly statestated the sexual or nonsexual nature of relationships;. theThough facttaboos thatagainst homosexuality was taboo in Western European cultures at the time means that some sexual relationships may behave hidden,motivated butsame-sex atlovers theto same timeconceal the rarenessnature of romantic friendship in modern times means that references to nonsexualtheir relationships may be misinterpreted, as alleged by [[Lillian Faderman|Faderman]], [[Stephanie Coontz|Coontz]], [[E. Anthony Rotundo|Anthony Rotundo]], [[Douglas Bush]], and others argue that the rarity of romantic friendship in modern culture means that references to nonsexual relationships may be misinterpreted by modern readers.

===Shakespeare and the "Fair Youth"===

Although 26 of [[Shakespeare's sonnets]] are love poems addressed to a married woman (the "[[Shakespeare's sonnets#Thethe Dark Lady|Dark Lady]]"), 126 are addressed to an adolescent boy (known as the "[[Shakespeare's sonnets#Fair Youth|Fair Youth]]"). The tone of the latter group, which focuses on the boy's beauty, has been interpreted as evidence for Shakespeare's bisexuality, although others interpret them as referring to intense friendship or fatherly affection, not sexual love.

Among those of the latter interpretation, in the preface to his 1961 Pelican edition, Douglas Bush writes:<ref>{{cite book |author1=William Shakespeare |editor1-last=Bush |editor1-first=Douglas |editor2-last=Harbage |editor2-first=Alfred |title=Sonnets |date=1961 |publisher=Penguin |location=Baltimore, Maryland, USA |chapter=Preface (by Douglas Bush)}}</ref>

{{quotation|Since modern readers are unused to such ardor in masculine friendship and are likely to leap at the notion of homosexuality… we may remember that such an ideal, often exalted above the love of women, could exist in real life, from Montaigne to Sir Thomas Browne, and was conspicuous in Renaissance literature.{{sfn|Crompton|2003|p=379}}{{verify source|date=May 2016}}}}

Bush cites [[Montaigne]], who distinguished male friendships from "that other, licentious [[Greek love]]",<ref>Rollins 1:55; Bush cited Montaigne's 1580 work "On Friendship," in which the exact quote was: "And this other {{notatypo|Greeke licence}} is justly abhorred by our {{notatypo|customes}}." {{harvnb|Montaigne|1580|p=4}}.</ref> as evidence of a platonic interpretation.

The French philosopher [[Montaigne]] described the concept of romantic friendship (without using this English term) in his essay "On Friendship". In addition to distinguishing this type of love from homosexuality ("this other Greek licence"), another way in which Montaigne differed from the modern view<ref>[[John Ruskin]]'s 1865 essay "On Queen's Gardens" is a good example of the later view that emotionality was a female province; Kate Millet analyzes this essay in ''Sexual Politics'' (1969, 1970, 1990, 2000), University of Illinois Press, {{ISBN|0-252-06889-0}}. Many modern books such as Carmen Renee Berry's ''Girlfriends: Invisible Ties'' (1998), Wildcat Canyon Press, {{ISBN|1-885171-20-X}}, argue that intensity in friendship is a female capacity.</ref> was that he felt that friendship and platonic emotion were a primarily masculine capacity (apparently unaware of the custom of female romantic friendship which also existed):

Shortly after his marriage, while in [[George Washington]]'s camp during the American Revolutionary Era, [[John Laurens]] met and became extremely close friends with [[Alexander Hamilton]]. They exchanged many letters during the several years when different assignments and Laurens' capture by the British kept them apart; for example, when the terms of Laurens' parole prevented him from being present at Hamilton's wedding to [[Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton|Elizabeth Schuyler]] in December 1780, even though Hamilton had invited him.<ref>{{Citation|chapter=Excerpt from a Letter to Lieutenant Colonel John Laurens, September 12, 1780|pages=143|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781108381277|doi=10.1017/9781108381277.025|title=The Political Writings of Alexander Hamilton|year=2017}}</ref> While emotional language was not uncommon in romantic friendships among those of the same gender in this historical period,<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/alexanderhamilto00cher|title=Alexander Hamilton|lastauthor1=Ron Chernow, Ron.|date=2004|publisher=Penguin Press|isbn=1594200092|location=New York|oclc=53083988}}</ref> Hamilton biographer [[James Thomas Flexner]] stated that the intensely expressive language {{such as?|date=January 2020}} contained in the Hamilton-Laurens letters "raises questions concerning homosexuality" that "cannot be categorically answered".{{Clarify|date=January 2020}}<ref>{{Cite book|title=The young Hamilton: a biography|lastauthor1=Flexner, James Thomas, Flexner (1908–2003.) |date=1997|publisher=Fordham University Press|isbn=0823217892|location=New York|oclc=37221262}}</ref>{{Clarify|date=January 2020}}

Some historians have used theThe relationship between [[Abraham Lincoln]] and [[Joshua Speed]] asis another example of a relationship that some modern peoplesources mayconsider see as ambiguousambiguously or possiblypotentially gay, butwhile others maintain whichit was a romantic friendship.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} Lincoln and Speed lived together for a time, shared a bed in their youth{{citation needed|date=December 2017}} and maintained a lifelong friendship. [[David Herbert Donald]] pointed out that men at that time often shared beds for financial reasons; men were accustomed to same-sex non-sexual intimacy, since most parents could not afford separate beds or rooms for male siblings. Anthony Rotundo notesargues that the custom of romantic friendship for men in America in the early 19th century was different from that of Renaissance France, and it was expected that men would distance themselves emotionally and physically somewhat after marriage; he claims that letters between Lincoln and Speed show this distancing after Lincoln married Mary Todd.{{r|Rotundo (1985)}} Such distancing is still practiced today.{{sfn|Geller|2001|pp=320–23}}

As the [[Women's suffrage in the United States|American suffrage movement]] succeeded in gaining rights for white middle- and upper-class women, heterosexual marriage became less of a necessity, and many more women went to college and continued to live in female-centric communities after graduation.<ref name="Faderman"/>{{Cite bookrp|title=Odd girls and twilight lovers : a history of lesbian life in twentieth-century America|last=Lillian|first=Faderman|isbn=0231074883|location=New York|pagesp=12|oclc=22906565}}</ref> The all-women peer culture formed at [[Women's colleges in the United States|women's colleges]] allowed students to create their own social rules and hierarchies, to become each other's leaders and heroes, and to idolize each other. These idolizations often took the forms of romantic friendships, which contemporaries called "smashes", "crushes" and "spoons".<ref name="Faderman">{{Cite book|title=Odd girls and twilight lovers : aA history of lesbian life in twentieth-century America|lastfirst1=Lillian|firstlast1=Faderman|year=1991 |isbn=0231074883|location=New York|pages=19|oclc=22906565}}</ref>{{rp|p=19}}

The practice of "smashing" involved one student showering another with gifts: notes, chocolates, sometimes even locks of hair. When the object of the student's affections was wooed and the two of them began spending all their time together, the "aggressor" was perceived by her friends as "smashed".<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sahli|first=Nancy Ann|date=1979|title=Smashing: Women's Relationships before the Fall|journal=Chrysalis|volume=8|pages=21}}</ref> In the early twentieth century, "crush" gradually replaced the term "smash", and generally signified a younger girl's infatuation with an older peer.<ref name="helen lh">{{Cite book|title=Alma mater : designDesign and experience in the women's colleges from their nineteenth-century beginnings to the 1930s|last=Lefkowitz.Horowitz |first=Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz |date=1993|publisher=University of Massachuchusetts Press|isbn=0870238698|edition= 2nd|location=Amherst|pages=166|oclc=43475535}}</ref>{{rp|p=166}} Historian Susan Van Dyne has documented an "intimate friendship" between Mary Mathers and Frona Brooks, two members of the [[Smith College]] class of 1883.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Dyne|first=Susan Van|date=2016|title="Abracadabra": Intimate Inventions by Early College Women in the United States|jstor=10.15767/feministstudies.42.2.0280|journal=Feminist Studies|volume=42|issue=2|pages=280–310|doi=10.15767/feministstudies.42.2.0280|s2cid=152238130 }}</ref> Mathers and Brooks exchanged tokens of affection, relished time spent alone together, and celebrated an anniversary.

Romantic friendships kindled in women's colleges sometimes continued after graduation, with women living together in "[[Boston marriages]]" or cooperative houses. Women who openly committed themselves to other women often found acceptance of their commitment and lifestyle in academic fields, and felt comfortable expressing their feelings for their same-sex companions.<ref name="helen lh"/>{{Cite bookrp|title=Alma mater : design and experience in the women's colleges from their nineteenth-century beginnings to the 1930s|last=Lefkowitz.|first=Horowitz, Helen|date=1993|publisher=University of Massachuchusetts Press|isbn=0870238698|edition= 2nd|location=Amherst|pagesp=190|oclc=43475535}}</ref>

At the turn of the century, smashes and crushes were considered an essential part of the women's college experience, and students who wrote home spoke openly about their involvement in romantic friendships.<ref name="helen lh"/>{{Cite bookrp|title=Alma mater : design and experience in the women's colleges from their nineteenth-century beginnings to the 1930s|last=Lefkowitz.|first=Horowitz, Helen|date=1993|publisher=University of Massachuchusetts Press|isbn=0870238698|edition= 2nd|location=Amherst|pagesp=66|oclc=43475535}}</ref> By the 1920s, however, public opinion had turned against crushes.<ref name="Faderman"/>{{Cite bookrp|title=Odd girls and twilight lovers : a history of lesbian life in twentieth-century America|last=Lillian|first=Faderman|isbn=0231074883|location=New York|pagesp=35|oclc=22906565}}</ref>

==Biblical and religious evidencearguments==

Proponents of the romantic friendship hypothesis also make reference to the [[Bible]]. Historians like Faderman and Robert Brain{{sfn|Brain|1976}} believe that the descriptions of relationships such as [[David and Jonathan]] or Ruth and Naomi in this religious text establish that the customs of romantic friendship existed and were thought of as virtuous in the ancient [[Near East]], despite the simultaneous taboo on homosexuality.

The relationship between [[King David]] and [[Jonathan (1 Samuel)|Jonathan]], son of [[King Saul]], is often cited as an example of male romantic friendship; for example, Faderman usesparaphrases 2 Samuel 1:26 on the title page of her book: "Your love was wonderful to me, passing the love of women."<ref>2 Samuel 1:26.</ref> Biblical scholar [[Theodore Jennings]] emphasizes that Jonathan's affection for David started out as [[love at first sight]] brought about by David's beauty, concluding this is no brotherly love but a feeling tinged with eroticism.<ref>{{cite book |title=Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic narrative in the literature of ancient Israel |page=25 |author=Theodore W. Jennings Jr. |year=2005 |publisher=Continuum |isbn=978-0826417121}}{{page needed|date=December 2021}}</ref>

[[Ruth (biblical figure)|Ruth]] and her [[mother-in-law]] [[Naomi (Bible)|Naomi]] are the female Biblical pair most often cited as a possible romantic friendship, as in the following verse commonly used in same-sex [[wedding]] ceremonies:

Faderman writes that women in Renaissance and Victorian times made reference to both Ruth and Naomi and "Davidean" friendship as the basis for their romantic friendships.{{sfn|Faderman|19811998|pp=67, 121}}

While some authors, notably [[John Boswell]], have claimed that ecclesiastical practice in earlier ages blessed "same -sex unions", theothers accuratemaintain interpretationthat ofthis theseis relationshipscategorically restsimpossible on agiven propertheir understanding of the moresindividuals’ and valuesofficiants’ of the participants, including both the parties receiving the rite in questionmores and the clergy officiating at itvalues. Boswell himself concedesnotes that past relationships are ambiguous; when describing Greek and Roman attitudes, Boswell states that "[A] consensual physical aspect would have been utterly irrelevant to placing the relationship in a meaningful taxonomy."{{sfn|Boswell|1995|p=76}} Boswell's own interpretationwork has beenreceived thoroughlymuch critiqued, notably bycriticism. Brent D. Shaw, who is incidentally gay himself, anoted homosexual,some of the differences between the two types of solemnized relationships in a review written for ''[[The New Republic]]'':

{{quotation|Given the centrality of Boswell's "new" evidence, therefore, it is best to begin by describing his documents and their import. These documents are liturgies for an ecclesiastical ritual called [[adelphopoiesis]] or, in simple English, the "creation of a brother." Whatever these texts are, they are not texts for marriage ceremonies. Boswell's translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as "The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men" or "Office for Same-Sex Union" is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book. Thus the Greek words that Boswell translates as "be united together" in the third section of the document quoted above are, in fact, rather ordinary words that mean "become brothers" (adelphoi genesthai); and when they are translated in this more straightforward manner, they impart a quite different sense to the reader.

Historian Robert Brain has also traced these ceremonies from Pagan "blood brotherhood" ceremonies through medieval Catholic ceremonies called "[[gossipry]]" or "siblings before God", on to modern ceremonies in some Latin American countries referred to as "[[compadre|compadrazgo]]"; Brain considers the ceremonies to refer to romantic friendship.{{sfn|Brain|1976|p=75–107}}

Several small groups of advocates and researchers have advocated for the renewed use of the term, or the related term [[Boston marriage]], today. Several [[lesbian]], [[gay]], and [[feminist]] authors (such as [[Lillian Faderman]], [[Stephanie Coontz]], Jaclyn Geller and Esther Rothblum) have doneconducted academic research on the topic;{{sfn|Rothblum|1993}} these authors typically favor the [[social constructionist]] view that [[sexual orientation]] is a modern, culturally constructed concept.<ref>See Faderman's introduction in the 1998 edition of ''Surpassing the Love of Men''; Coontz's ''The Way We Never Were'' has as its thesis the social construction of a variety of family and relationship traditions, whereas Geller advocates for the abolition of marriage and a renewed focus on friendship for feminist reasons ({{harvnb|Geller|2001}}).</ref>

* [[Work spouse]]}}

|first = L.Louis

|publisher = [[Harper CollinsHarperCollins]]