The so-called "Long Term Relationship" in Gay Parlance

Posted elsewhere and edited for posting here ...

Long Term Relationsip or more commonly known by their initials LTR, is something, apparently, the most sought after kind of relationship that gays are pursuing. But is it really so?

People come into a relationship for three, or maybe four, reasons.

First, perhaps the most common reason, especially for gays, is really just sex, plain and simple.

However many will deny this is the reason. The evidence, on the other hand, is more compelling that anything you or anyone say. And thus I have concluded that the so-called LTR is merely an excuse for sex, and love was used, or abused, as a justification for lust.

And the evidence is simply this: the many stories of so-called gay LTR that dont last long, lasting from weeks to months and at most a couple of years. And even then in the latter most of time it has degenerated into a so-called 'open relationship'.

For sex is all about lust, and it is all about physical attraction and physical sensations, and such relationships founded entirely or mainly on such cannot last. I know, for I experienced such lusts first hand myself too, as I am sure many do also. After you have discovered someone, seen him naked, eaten his fruits, he no longer excites.

So strictly speaking such relationships are just extended ONS or sex-buddies.

The more interesting thing to do here is not to debate the fact but rather to ponder and speculate the reasons why people are averse to calling a spade a spade, ie to say openly that what they want in a relationship is sex. I can think of a few reasons.

One is the notion that ONS is bad. I have seen this sentiment expressed, some from religious perspectives, be it Buddhism or Christianity, but no one really asked themselves why it is so. Maybe it is just a hangover from the notions and values of traditional straight relationships where you are not suppose to screw your gal before you marry her. So sex outside of a 'marriage' is bad. And so people seeking sex, seek a so-called LTR, to be a cover to justify having sex, particularly that involving anal penetration in the case of gays.

And here I want to relate an incident. I was horny and met this guy. And we were proceeding beyond hand-holding, and into the process of comprehensive mutual discovery, but he hesitated saying that he will have sex only in a relationship. But then he has crossed the point of no return, and so he made up his mind on the spot that we are already in a relationship, ie to consider me already a boyfriend after only a few hours knowing me. But that was what he needed pscyhologically to go on to enjoy the physical. And after this point he abandon himself fully to the thrills, and it was the first time I walked on the beach naked hand in hand with another one naked.

I have also observed that usually it is bottoms who seek such LTR. Tops generally have less qualms about calling ONS, ONS. I may be wrong, but I think it is reasonable; and the reasons are, it is safer to stick to one cock; a cock is a cock, ie it does matter if it is the same cock, the thrill of your G-spot being hit is still as thrilling; and it is perceived it is ok for tops to have ONS but for btms to get fucked around is to be a slut.

So tops are not thought 'immoral' to have ONS, and thus tops give full rein to their thrill of 'discovering' people, many many people: a new face, a new bod, a new cock, a new ass, alway excites more the same old asshole. And then being tied down in an LTR is really a disadvantage. But people all cheat, and the long in the LTR is really something always negotiable, dependent on unknown and many factors - as in it "depends" - and thus ultimately non-enforceable and meaningless.

But whatever the reasons are, the fact of the matter remains that sex is a main reason for most gay relationships, the so-called LTR.

And I dare put forward that sex is also a major reason for straight relationships too, except that after fucking a gal there are consequences, and such do indeed evolved into marriage and maybe even love. But there are no consequences in a gay fuck - gay sex is free sex (and so you have bisexuals) - and so there is really no force or motivation to keep and to evolve the relationship further other than a sexual one, although gays in LTR say they do.

The second reason is companionship.

Here people come together for the mutual benefits of having a companion, someone who you give first priority to, and who has first-call privileges on your life, your time, your resources, your emotions, etc.

But there are various shades of grey in this relationship, as characterised by the type and degree of mutuality.

The mutuality type refers to the things shared. It can just be time, or thoughts or values, or feelings, or it may be entirely physical, from sharing a house, activities, and of course including sex. So when people say sex is part of the package in an LTR, they are thinking of such a relationship.

And so people can be companions without sharing everything. They share the things they want to share. It could just be time and activities and does not involved sex. An old married couple could be an example of such a relationship. Or it is could be on the other extreme where it is all physical, a house, such as sharing costs to buy a condo, making and sharing meals, mutual sexual gratification, or none. In a sense friends are a kind of companionship relation.

But the mutuality is the key here, ie it involves an exchange or a trade, a sharing: I give, you give, I fuck, you fuck. But if you stop giving, I stopped, and if I am no longer first priority in your life, so will you be dropped from having first call privileges.

The second factor is the degree or type of mutuality, ie how much do you 'pay' in that exchange. You can have at one extreme equality, same for same, degree for degree, ie the same things are traded and to the same amounts by both parties, something like 69.

On the other extreme, the relationship can be one where one party gives everything for just a little of another thing back, eg a sugar daddy/sugar son relationship. And some have classify this as a fourth reason for relationship: to extract maximal benefits for yourself, but I rather not and see it just as an extreme form of a companion relationship. The giver although being milked is getting something back too.

But of course when approaching this extreme, the trade or the mutual exchange may degenerate into prostitution, ie to trade away things non tradeable, or for things inappropriate or of relatively no value. Where such trades transit from being moral to immoral is not entirely clear, for in a sense we are all trading our bodies away everyday in our work: trading labour for money. It may be clear in the extreme, but murky elsewhere.

Lastly the third reason is love, true love.

And to me love is simply a relationship that relates to the other for the good of the other, and for no other reasons.

It does not need mutuality nor gratification of any sort, physical or otherwise.

And this is what distinguish true friends from mere friends, namely, if there are no benefits to you to be his friend, would you still be his friend?

If you see all relationships in terms of what you can get from it, whether you need him, or are you benefited, in one way or another, be it material, spiritual, knowledge, connections, or whatever, then you do not really love. And he is not really your friend. The other, even if you call him friend, is merely a means to an end, namely yours, and particularly one who puts you better than what you were before.

So again to reiterate you love solely for the sake of the other, and not for your benefits.

So to me the best test of true love is if the other person walks away from you and no longer call you friend, do you still consider him friend? Do you still care for him? Would you still give him your time, energy and effort? And would you still response to him when he is in need, whether or not he asked you for it?

Sounds like a tall order? an unrealistic, unworldly and impractical notion? or just plain delusion, a fairy tale or even madness? Well it may well be, and thus I also conclude that love is not common in so-called LTR, if at all, and perhaps never the real reason for any relationship between anyone in the real world, sexual or otherwise, straight or otherwise.

But I still believe in love.

That it is so uncommon only makes it far more precious, and no price then is too great to pay.

And true love can exist in a companionship too, ie where two person loves each other, each loving the other solely for his sake, unconditionally, unreservedly and unassumingly, each loving the other as himself, and without trade. That is true mutuality, and a great love.

But perhaps this happens only in fairy tales.

So when I hear some gay says he is seeking LTR, I never assumed that he seeks love, or, conversely, to presume he seeks sex, in an acceptable context, and/or companionship, until and unless proven otherwise.

And ironically true love may be more likely outside an LTR, and the only true LTR is actually friendship, something deemed of less value amongst gays than the so-called LTR.