Not Just A River In Egypt

[poliphilo]

It's 1949. Enid is in Africa, visiting relations. She meets a young man called John who is a friend of her brother's. Enid is 61, John is 37.

There's an immediate connection. John makes sheep's eyes, Enid makes sheep's eyes back. She hints in her diary at a karmic connection,

Even through the medium of Enid's besotted prose John comes across as a creep. People warn her against him, they say he's a schizophrenic, that he has a "bit of a kink". To make matters worse he's in the middle of divorcing his wife. Then he snatches his kids from his wife's care and asks Enid and the people she's staying with to look after them for him

He tells Enid that his wife is a lesbian and has been sexually abusing the three little girls. Enid believes him.  He goes on to say that his wife denied him "normal" sexual relations and the children were only conceived after he'd "forced" himself on her. A few lines further on Enid refers to the wife as a "sexual maniac".

Hang on a minute.

But now John is asking Enid if she has ever been in love. She says "Three times" and tells him about the men in her life.  The men in her life?  Yes, the men. Only the men. No mention of Smithie. No mention of Nina. No mention of Doro. Apparently they don't count. Or- at this moment- matter at all. And slowly it dawns on me that Enid- for all that she spends her life obsessing about women, for all that she sleeps with women- thinks of herself as totally straight.

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

In 1895- when Enid was 7.

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

Probably made quite an impression.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Enid writes about the changes her generation had to cope with, saying- and I think rightly- that no generation had ever had to cope with so much. In the end the demands of all those changes- social and ethical- defeated her and she took to banging away about the moral flabbiness of youth. That's where she loses me.

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

Absolutely fascinating.

low

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

Perhaps she thought that it was her "moral steadfastness" allowed her to not succumb to the temptation to identify as a lesbian... or, perhaps, she saw sex as something that was only valid when there is a man involved. In 1986 I visited London and had a lovely 4 day fling with a woman who lived there. One of the things that she told me was that Queen Victoria did not think sex was important if there was not a man involved, which is why she made homosexuality illegal... between men, but said not one word about lesbians. My friend gave me a necklace with a coin with Victoria's image on it. She said that images of Victoria were often worn by lesbians to signal other lesbians, and this history was the reason why.

Re: low

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

"Moral steadfastness" is a term she'd have identified with.

Unfortunately there's nothing in her voluminous writings- at least nothing I've come across yet- that clarifies her attitude to sex. She contemplates becoming John's mistress than backs out pleading "high spiritual ideals". She takes women to bed but never tells us what happens when they get there. Certain throwaway phrases suggest something akin to homophobia. I find myself wondering whether she ever actually had sex- or anything more than kisses and cuddles- with anyone.

Re: low

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

It's possible. The thing about homosexuality... or, sexuality in general, is that people cannot choose how they feel, but they can choose how they act. If a gay person honestly believes that there is no recourse, they may choose to never, ever, actually have sex with someone who they are strongly attracted to or deeply in love with. This is basically the same as"situational homosexuality" where people are, say, in prison. They end up having sex with members of their own sex because there are no opportunities to do otherwise.

Perhaps she sincerely saw no good could come from the fact that she kept falling in love with women, and did her best to make it not a reality.