So far we have defined lesbianism, and met Sappho from whom we have this name. We know that lesbians come in assorted "flavors," and that most of them raise eyebrows at the very least, and invoke downright hostility as a general rule. Yet I have tried to separate from the general term "lesbian," that feature which I claim all women have, which I define as a capacity to love; distinguishing womanhood as no other characteristic can. It is the "seed" mentioned in my introduction. Don't point to her breasts and say "that is a woman." Don't identify her as "the weaker sex." Don't avoid a deeper definition of a woman with trite references to homemaking and motherhood...and please leave out claims of equality with men as if she needs to be "elevated" to that grand status. No. Point to that creature and say: "there is a woman, who knows of love; who knows how to love; and who does love...as no man can." Am I saying that men can't love? Of course not. They do their best and in many cases do very well. But with men it is not only the lesser capacity for deepest love, but a difficulty with priorities. In no way do I mean this to be a derogation! We know that something is only as high as low it isn't. We are stuck with relative measure as the only way we can compare things...but on a higher plane where capacity to love is seen as a "form" or "ideal" (See Plato) then we only go to that ideal to measure a woman's love. A man's capacity to love is measured against the ideal of man's love, and not against a woman's. Yet we are in fact stuck with relative measure, so here I am on the limb stating that women have a greater capacity for deep love than a man.
I want so much to make clear that the "love quotient" is the greatest measure of womanhood. That I call it lesbianism needs the repeated reminder that sex is not what I refer to. Remember that I said love comes first, and may or may not ever be sexually shown. If you still think "homosexual" when I refer to lesbianism, then I have lost you somewhere along the line. If you object to my calling a woman's greater capacity to love the seed of lesbianism, then by all means call it something else; but agree if you can that it distinguishes women from men better than any other characteristic. I call it lesbian because it "can" result in homosexual behavior...not that it necessarily "does."
I had considered giving examples of a woman's greater capacity to love (than a man's), but because I believe most will agree with the premise, I will forego that. If I receive enough contrary feedback with valid argument, then it may be necessary in a future segment to offer my thesis with that kind of support. Perhaps one single example will suffice. Let us think of the love that exists between a man and a woman--between a husband and a wife if you prefer. What happens where there is discovered or perceived infidelity? The man is more inclined to end the relationship, because his love is based more on "ownership," and he will not accept a "shared possession." A woman will likely forgive and go on because her love transcends the pain of misbehavior. A woman will often stay with a brutish man if she loves him; but I doubt a man's love would survive the opposite. Stated simply, I believe a woman's love for her mate is a deeper, more enduring love than his, only because she is a woman and is given that gift by nature. I would be grateful for any contrary opinion that is based on reason and logic.
Lest a reader feel I am too carried away with the notion that all women carry this propensity to love another woman, let me state my opinion that the vast majority of women live their lives in a conventional way with no thought given to relationships with other women. Nature intended heterosexual relationships for obvious reasons, and there is nothing surprising in the fact that most women do not even think along these terms. Men and women are attracted to each other as is intended, and the race of man is thus propagated. A minor percentage of women is bi-sexual, and of these women perhaps a majority will marry and raise children. A very small percentage of women are exclusively lesbian in that they have no sexual relationships with men, nor do they want to. So why then do I suggest that all women carry the potential for lesbianism? It is because at any point in their lives women may, for any number of reasons, discover in themselves an urge or a curiosity, that if it does not shock them, may lead to experimentation. It is the potential that I have seen in talking with many so-called straight women, that either is representative, or that by some bizarre coincidence I have only met that kind of woman. Indeed, it is the prevailing incidence of this that led me to investigate the subject in the first place. The one most significant and common ingredient that permeated every serious conversation I ever had about lesbianism, was love.
...to be continued
redd_k
bio
feedback
