Author Topic: 0042: Grero and "Someone Can Love Anybody"  (Read 7869 times)

andkon

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
0042: Grero and "Someone Can Love Anybody"
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:36:19 PM »





Quote
I stumbled upon your book, and found it interesting, as a not-seeing-much-sense-in-calling-himself-gay man.

One of the reasons is, I can totally see myself loving a woman, for example, though I am not really keen on the "having sex" part. Also, I don't really like the gay community. At all. That being said, I'm not a "masculine man who loves masculine man" either, not in the exact sense. I cook. I'm awesome at baking cookies. I'm not good at football (soccer, that is) or anything, I feel no joy in indulging in any kind of activity that involves football, be it playing it, watching it, or anything else (I kick a good deal of ass in foosball, though). In short, I don't display what is called "gender-conforming behaviour". However, I suppose I am not effeminate either. The friends I express my love of men to are surprised, saying that they wouldn't expect me to be gay. I don't bother to explain I don't think I am gay, because, you know, controversial stuff.

Now, that being my position, your book kind of confused me. I'm pretty sure I can't call myself grero, because I don't really fit in the definition.

With me, the way out was far more simpler, but by no rights do I claim it is more accurate. Tastes in relationship is like tastes in food. Some like vegetables. Some like meat. Some carnivores may love mushroom anyway, because it is more of a "meaty" vegetable. Yet some other carnivores may love themselves a dish of cabbage, for no apparent reason what so ever. Some might like tomatoes, but not that one particular tomato, because they actually like watery tomatoes, whereas this one isn't watery at all. We don't really look for reasons in tastes in food, beyond the aspects of it (being well-cooked, meaty, crunchy, whatnot)  We just love them. I see it the same with sexuality.

This is more of a shortcut I have taken, and not a general principle on esthetics I heed. My question to you is, why didn't you endorse the "someone can love anybody" approach, but took the route of coining in a new term which, the way I see it, allows just the same thing.

I hope my question isn't an absurd one, and thanks in advance for your time.