M/S, bosom buddies, platonic trio, sexualization of US

[chanteuse thalia chaunacy]

dicentra wrote about Mulder/Scully loooove: "it was a *wonderful* 
relationship. It was intimate, they cared for each other very much--you 
could even go so far as to say that they *loved* each other--but there 
was no sexual element..."

my x-philes friends and i used to say that M/S was the epitome of agape. 
the sex (theoritical, as this was back in season 4) was like a bonus.  
and that's how i look at life in general, being the optimist i am: it's 
all about agape; sex is a bonus. and i have quite a varied personal track 
record (gotten involved with friends, refused to get involved with 
friends, gotten involved with strangers, gotten involved with both 
genders, etc etc) so i don't think this is wishful thinking or deep-
seated issues on my part.

but--i'm what's known in some circles as 'perky'.  so watch out.

diana wrote: "I'd really like to see society pull its head out and give 
these kinds of relationships more emphasis than the romantic ones. 
they're much healthier, they do less damage to the individuals, and they 
leave room for the individuals to grow separately or apart."

this seems very one-sided. perhaps there are only relationships, in the 
dictionary sense, and within them, there are millions of different 
permutations. damage, growth, and health are all easy things to talk 
about but hard to really understand. so i say--don't assume you know 
what's good and what's bad.

dicentra wrote: "[because deep friendships are under-represented] I want 
to keep the Trio free from entanglements with each other (or if they 
entangle, they disentangle rather quickly.)"

if a couple establishes itself romantically in books 5 6 & 7, that makes 
it 1 to about 80 established friendships. even if it's within the trio. 
there are TONS of wonderful agape-filled platonic deep bonded 
relationships in these books.  one or two romantic pairings wouldn't skew 
it to be a sap-fest that disregards agape.

diana wrote: "true friendships are being disregarded in favor of the idea 
that lust and sex make up more of a person's personality and friendships, 
whether in the real world, in a book or on a screen. <snip> Don't even 
get me started on how oversexualized the culture of the world, 
particularly the USA has become..."

try looking at it a different way for a moment. perhaps the problem is 
not in the oversexualization of our culture, but is in the simultaneous 
stimulation and opression of sexual responses. even as sex is promoted by 
nature (not to mention pop culture), it is demoted by religion (not to 
mention that very same pop culture), thus making it a highly volatile, 
confusing, surreal thing. so of course it's flaunted, assaulted, 
regurgitated, and pedestaled. it's such a huge freaking deal because we 
can't get a straight answer about it. friendship--well, nobody says 
friendship'll get you thrown in hell. but inappropriate touching can, so 
friendships are considered appropriate when presented free of said 
touching.  HENCE -- the very philosophies that condemn sex and promote 
friendship actually lessen friendships by taking away the natural 
physical parts of deep friendship  (ie platonic hugs, handholding and bed-
sharing). so you can't blame it on the OVERsexualization of anything, 
when it's actually the repression of physicality that's to blame.

don't know if i made my point, but it seems a valliant effort 
nonetheless.  :) thanks for listening.

thalia 'what's so amazing about really deep thoughts?' chaunacy

"Ah, music. A magic beyond all we do here!"  -Albus Dumbledore