Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Thoughts on Romantic Love.


There are some people who state that the exterior, sex, or physique of another person is indifferent to them, that they care only for the communion of mind with mind; but these people need not detain us. There are some statements that no one ever thinks of believing, however often they are made.
 G.K. Chesterton
Recently, I was commenting at a conservative religious site(I'm not linking to it) about the subject of Game. The host of the site was critical of Game, considering it to be anti-Christian at heart. Like most conservatives, the host could find nothing good about it, confusing the hedonist imperatives of some of its proponents with the actual teachings of Game.

I've often felt that one of the reasons why churchy types find game objectionable is because of its emphasis on getting a woman sexually aroused; and many churchy types point to this aspect of game when they criticise it. On the other hand, women who respond to game are frequently viewed negatively, as if there was something wrong with them. Even amongst a fair portion of the manosphere there is a lot of criticism of women who find players attractive.

I've been mulling over this point for a while, as I've often felt that there was something wrong with this line of reasoning.  The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the problem is not with the women but with their critics. The problem, I think, is in our cultural conception of romantic love.

There has always been an ascetic element in Western Culture which has viewed the pleasures of the flesh as morally suspect. Now, it's my belief that Christian culture has been hijacked by these ascetic types, and whilst Christianity has admittedly always warred against the flesh,  the puritan aspect of  it has seen this war as a war of extermination instead of subjugation. Subjugation at least recognises the validity of flesh's existence whilst keeping it under control, extermination denies the flesh's right to exist. And it appears that this puritan element of Christianity has had the upper hand in shaping our understanding of human sexuality and love.

Romantic love, as idealised, was always above the waist. Somehow, it was always a tender and romantic thing. Fluids, smells and noises were never mentioned; and the idea of a man and woman, shagging each other senseless, doesn't quite fit the fit the picture of romantic love. Indeed, one of the things about much romantic love is that it lacks a "physicality",  instead, being something that exists on another plane.

This romantic view of love, was also contingent upon their being a romantic lover; a lover who was courteous, considerate, gentle and kind. And it was this  romantic masculine ideal that became progressively entrenched in Western Culture, particularly amongst the middle class males. The resultant product was a consciously desexulised man, whom whilst "nice" to his wife, did nothing actively to satisfy her carnal nature.

Just as hunger predisposes the existence of bread, so do our carnal desire predispose the existence of a worthy lover. If we assume that average woman is in possession of a least some form of carnal appetite, then this implies that there is a man out there that can satisfy it. The problem is that the good man--at least defined by the puritans-- could not satisfy it, since he had been taught that the flesh was base and love is on a "higher plane",. The only man who could satisfy this carnal nature was the bad man: Puritan romanticism was the midwife of the "bad boy".

Now, women get a lot of heat in the manosphere for wanting to satisfy their carnal desires by sleeping with bad boys, in other words, the man-o-sphere is criticising women for doing what comes to them naturally. (See note below) However if we think about what is considered the ideal woman; the mother, the madonna and the whore, we find that there is a whorish dimension to the ideal woman's personality. What the manosphere is effectively doing is criticising women for being sexual.  It's  puritanism in another form.

What I'm not advocating here is sexual abandon, rather, rather a acknowledgement of the legitimacy of female carnality within the context of Christian marriage. A lusty but faithful wife is a good wife, not abnormal or impure in some way. If we recognise the legitimacy of this female carnality it becomes incumbent upon husbands to cater to it. Not in a sense of being a slave to a woman's desires, desires that are natural, rather recoginising that they are legitimate needs. Needs, that if not catered to,  will give an opportunity for someone else to do so. The usual Christian response to sexual frustration is re-emphasise the importance of the vow and pay lip service to the frustration, what we never hear is the Christian emphasise the legitimacy of the husband or wife's sexuality. Sexuality here does not imply the simple mechanical action of sex, rather the whole gamut of features which stimulate the partner's desire. When's the last time you've ever heard a minister/priest/religious figure criticise a woman for letting herself go or the husband for being a wuss? The whole ascetic conception of romantic love is that it will conquer all, and that sexuality is not that important.

But as long as Christians keep peddling this "asexual romantic" version  of marital love, they are undermining the foundations of that institution.  Firstly, by ignoring carnal legitimacy, they are promoting an institution that pseudo-legitimises sexual frustration. This does not mean that every Christian marriage is sexually frustrated, rather,  if sexual frustration occurs in marriage it is not viewed as big deal and effectively ignored. The good Christian puts up with it and his faith is constantly tested, the bad Christian seeks satisfaction outside the marriage or deligitimises the institution or the culture that put him in that predicament. Strengthening christian marriage will come about only when there is a recognition of the legitimacy of its carnal component, not in the context of making babies, but as appetites in themselves which seek satisfaction. Wives injure their husbands and their marriages when they ignore this dimension and husbands injure their marriages when they fail to satisfy their wives' carnal natures. The current bad boy fetish is because the "good guys" are  hyposexual.

Viewed in this light, a beta male, is simply hyposexual male from a woman's point of view. And this raises the second problem with the "romantic" view of love; it's an attack on concept of gender identity.  Now, if our sexuality is part of our identity, then masculinity must be defined, at least partially, by what women find attractive. That which sexually arouses the woman is masculine, and that which sexually arouses the man, is feminine. Our gender identity is the complement of our opposite's sexual appetite. Traditional "hyposexual" romantic love is an attack on our gender identity since it legitimises a lover which ignores our sexual needs: Being manly doesn't matter, only being nice and kind and loving, any asexualised man will do.

The solution to this problem is to reassert the carnal nature of male-female love and legitimise it. Romance is important, but so are our fleshy needs. Romantic love needs to be alpha'ed  up.

(For those Aspergy types. A woman who has taken a vow of marriage subordinates her desires to the marriage, hence if she breaks her vows for whatever reason she is the guilty party. But the degree of her culpability is contingent upon the actions of her partner. A partner who has been objectively neglectful of his marriage, in whatever sphere, bears some of the blame as well. Wussy and nice men aren't completely innocent. A man has to have a pair.)

Addendum:  

Hayley, over at Hayley's Halo seems to be thinking along parallel lines:

Also, I think the other, not-really-acknowledged part of it is that for all the admonishments for young, Christian women to look forward to the day God brings them to the special man God has picked out Just For Them, a lot of young, Christian women just don’t possess the suite of wifely skills that would increase their marital prospects.  Sure, there are hyper-organized young women whose idea of heaven is The Container Store, but there are just as many, if not more, slobby girls out there whose rooms look like hurricanes blew through them.  A lot of girls don’t know the basics of cooking.  A lot of girls don’t clean…much.  They don’t iron, they don’t decorate, they don’t know how to look for bargains or budget, they don’t know how to dress themselves with both dignity and style.  Some of these skills come with time and experience, but a lot of girls can only offer their youth and their love for Jesus.  That’s just not enough when it comes to marriage, but so much churchly advice does these girls wrong by teaching them that Mr. Right will be identifiable by his love for her good heart alone and that he will arrive in God’s Perfect Timing.  So just keep on being frumpy and praying, because God can see your beautiful heart even if those sin-blinded men out there
who are probably addicted to porn and as a result can’t see your true beauty
 can’t.  Is this really the best way to offer hope to unmarried women? [Or men, Ed.]
 

18 comments:

Ulysses said...

My dad and I were once discussing unfaithful wives. I said I didn't understand the men who burst in and killed the lover; if anything, they should kill the wife. My dad said, "Why? The husband should have been taking care of business at home. If he had been, he wouldn't have had occasion to catch her cheating." Granted, this view ignores the base nature of some women, but it doesn't ignore the fact that women have carnal desires and that men need to sack up and own those desires.

Johnny Caustic said...

Excellent observations.

I would go a step further. I think the clergy should teach that spouses have a moral duty to cater to their spouses' carnal nature. I believe this duty is real, just like feeding your kids, though obviously the latter has higher priority.

Much as I agree with what you say, I think it's incomplete. I'm still mulling over why the facts that Game teaches about female carnality are such a mind-fucking paradigm shift. It's not just the fact that the truth is completely incompatible with common conceptions of romantic love; it's that there's something downright threatening about female sex drive to modern sensibilities. Still having trouble putting my finger on it.

Simon Grey said...

"There has always been an ascetic element in Western Culture which has viewed the pleasures of the flesh as morally suspect"

This is really nothing more than Gnosticism, spoken for the modern ear. Incidentally, Gnostic thought began as early as the 90s AD, which helps to explain St. John's motivation for writing 1st John. Anyhow, the point is that even from the early days of the church, there have been those who have viewed carnal desires as suspect (or even evil). You would think that they've never read the Song of Solomon. Or Ecclesiastes. There is nothing new under the sun.

Anonymous said...

"Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust as the horse and mule which have not understanding: over them the devil hath power." Tobias, chapter 7 verses 17 and 18. "Then Jesus said to His disciples: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 16 verse 24. "And there were present, at that very time, some that told Him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And He answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Gospel of St. Luke chapter 13 verses 1-3. Asceticism is necessary for all who are in earnest as regards saving their souls. God allowed the protestants to arise as a punishment of the worldliness of the Christians of the later Middle Ages, and so has it gone since then with the number of Christians (only Roman Catholics have the right to be called thus, the others are heretics, scismatics or infidels of some sort) growing fewer, and those few that remain becoming ever more worldly, and the world becoming ever worse. For those who talk of gloomy ascetics ruining life, I can only wonder why the modern west isn't a terrestrial paradise. The whole point of existence for modern people is gratifying themselves like beasts, they certainly aren't given to mortification by any means, yet they are some of the most miserable people on earth, as the rate of suicide and drug addiction well attests.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"The husband should have been taking care of business at home. If he had been, he wouldn't have had occasion to catch her cheating." Granted, this view ignores the base nature of some women, but it doesn't ignore the fact that women have carnal desires and that men need to sack up and own those desires."

Very true, Ulysses..

An assertive and strong husband would be giving his wife a good seeing to on a very regular basis. Thus ensuring that a deep bond forms between them.

Women who do not have frequent sex with their husbands are much more likely to stray, because of a lack of bonding.

The more you have sex with her the more she will want it. The more she will become bound to you..


"Romance is important, but so are our fleshy needs. Romantic love needs to be alpha'ed up."

You know, SP, I think romance is overated in marriage and is something that belongs with courting and snaring a mate..

Once you are married and the kids come along, there is not too much time for romance.. Nor should a sensible woman expect such stuff.

The "ten second kiss " nonsense put forward by Athol Kay is unrealistic. What man when he comes home from work after a hard days work could be bothered with it? And other such stuff, in order to get the wife to come across!

If a woman gets a good rogering frequently she won't give a jot about a ten second kiss. Or chocolates or flowers etc..

I prefer a bit of a grope or a slap on the bottom myself..

And the pièce de résistance a pleasant surprise over the kitchen sink while I am doing the dishes.. :D

Ah, that's the stuff life is made of. ;)

"Breathless, we flung us on the windy hill,
Laughed in the sun, and kissed the lovely grass.
You said, "Through glory and ecstasy we pass;
Wind, sun, and earth remain, the birds sing still,
When we are old, are old. . . ." "And when we die
All's over that is ours; and life burns on
Through other lovers, other lips," said I,
---"Heart of my heart, our heaven is now, is won!"

Rupert Brooke

carpe diem!

Jack said...

I don't doubt that western society needs to 'man up'. I resent the portrayal of men of my ilk as hapless buffoons that seems to pervade our culture. Not funny.

I am a Catholic as well. While it's not stated in the Sunday missal, the position of the church in this area is that our human sexuality is a gift from God and that we are to enjoy that gift to the fullest.

Here is a passage from one of your favorite books as listed on your profile. A reformed puritan, this one. Yes?

Pale, motionless, overwhelmed by this frightful revelation, dazzled by the superhuman beauty of this woman who unveiled herself before him with an immodesty which appeared to him sublime, he ended by falling on his knees before her as the early Christians did before those pure and holy martyrs whom the persecution of the emperors gave up in the circus to the sanguinary sensuality of the populace. The brand disappeared; the beauty alone remained.

"Pardon! Pardon!" cried Felton, "oh, pardon!"

Milady read in his eyes LOVE! LOVE!

"Pardon for what?" asked she.

"Pardon me for having joined with your persecutors."

Milady held out her hand to him.

"So beautiful! so young!" cried Felton, covering that hand with his kisses.

Milady let one of those looks fall upon him which make a slave of a king.

Felton was a Puritan; he abandoned the hand of this woman to kiss her feet.

He no longer loved her; he adored her.

JMSmith said...

S.P.,
I agree with your central point, and believe St. Paul would as well. This is also, I think, what is meant by that line "to have and to hold" in the Christian marriage vow. But I think you fall into a misleading cultural stereotype when you charge the Puritans with comprehensively repressive sexual attitudes. They certainly disapproved much sexual behavior that the modern world approves or celebrates, but anyone who looks at the size of Puritan families in New England knows that this was a culture in which the marriage bed was very far from dead.

It is true that many Puritans became Romantics, and that there is some internal logic in this cultural development, but my sense is that Puritans had a healthy and realistic attitude toward sex within marriage. The problem began when Puritans changed into Unitarians and Transcendentalists, and so began to think of themselves as embodied spirits rather than redeemed flesh. This was the gnostic revival of Romanticism that Simon Grey mentions. Now at least some of the Romantics were practicing primitive contraception, but this alone cannot account for their shrinking families. As D. H. Lawrence said, they had moved into a world of "sex in the head."

Looking at family trees in New England into the 19th century, one sees in very many cases fairly regular childbirth right up until menopause. And as you well know, it takes very regular coition to produce a child in a woman after age 35 or 40. No evidence of a dead bed here.

Maybe the Puritans knew something about sex that we've forgotten.

The Social Pathologist said...

Thanks everyone for your comments.

@ JMSmith. I've used the term puritan in the modern usage of the term. i.e. anti-carnal pleasure, but I understand that this is a simplistic representation of the actual Puritans who settled in the U.S.

Whilst I imagine there must of been a lot of copulating in order to explain family sizes, it's one thing to copulate to reproduce and another to copulate for pleasure. Sex can be a chore, especially if the sole imperative is biological reproduction.

One of strangest phenomenon that I've ever observed, is seeing what happens to men in couples with fertility issues. A lot of men become sexually dysfunctional when their wives begin to relate to them as inseminators; no seriously. A lot of women, aiming to get pregnant, arrange for sex to occur at a certain time to ensure the maximum probability of fertility. It becomes a hop on, hop off kind of affair. After a couple of cycles of this, a lot of men just turn off sex because they feel like the woman is only using them for their sperm. Sex literally becomes an inseminatory act.

Another point. Puritanism is an extraordinary hard ideal to live by. I imagine that many puritans sinned quite a lot.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Ulysses.

Thanks for dropping by.

The thing is that our society has had a lot of problem recognising the licitness of female desire. Had it recognised it, I think our society's conception of manhood would be different. An "acarnal" woman is satisfied by an "acarnal" male. The thing about this acarnal view is that it sort of legitimises "wussy" men and stigmatises feminine women. Many men are justified in their "wussiness" by this asexual version of sexuality. Sometimes I wonder if the biblical condemnation of "effeminacy" may be alluding to this.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Jack

Thanks for the comments.

the position of the church in this area is that our human sexuality is a gift from God and that we are to enjoy that gift to the fullest.

That is the official version but sexual matters, until recently, were treated with a degree modesty that bordered on outright prudery and shame.It's still within living memory that women went to marriage without a basic understanding of reproductive biology. People would use all sorts of euphemisms to describe genitals and sexual matters out of a sense of shame. The unifying concept behind these behaviours is a notion that sexual was somehow degraded. Look, I don't believe in " letting it all hang out" but what was happening as recently as 50 years ago was not right. I think there is a strain of gnosticism still running through serious Christianity especially amongst the more trad minded crowd.

As for poor Felton, his doom was in worshiping her as a goddess instead of loving her as a man.

Anonymous said...

I suppose St. Augustine was a gnostic as well, for he wrote the following in answer to the pelagians in his book "On Marriage And Concupiscence" "You see the terms of his question to us: what the devil can find in the sexes to call his own, by reason of which they should be in his power, who are born of parents of whatsoever kind, unless they be born again in Christ; he asks us, moreover, whether it is the difference in the sexes which we ascribe to the devil, or their union, or their very fruitfulness. We answer, then, nothing of these qualities, inasmuch as the difference of sex belongs to "the vessels" of the parents; while the union of the two pertains to the procreation of children; and their fruitfulness to the blessing pronounced on the institution of marriage. But all these things are of God; yet among them he was unwilling to name that "lust of the flesh, which is not of the Father, but is of the world;" (I John 2:16) and of this world the devil is said to be the prince )Gospel of St. John 14:30)--nothing, that is, of sin; neither that which is derived from birth, nor that which is added during life. Among all the natural goods of procreation which he mentioned, he was, I repeat, unwilling to name this particular fact of concupiscence, over which even marriage blushes, which glories in all these before-mentioned goods. For why is the work of parents withdrawn and hidden even from the eyes of their children, except that it is impossible for them to be occupied in laudable procreation without shameful lust? Because of this it was that even they were ashamed who first covered their nakedness(Genesis 3:7) These portions of their person were not suggestive of shame before, but deserved to be commended and praised as the work of God. They put on their covering when they felt their shame, and they felt their shame when, after their disobedience to their Maker, they felt their members disobedient to themselves. Our quoter of extracts likewise felt ashamed of this concupiscence. For he mentioned the difference of the sexes; he mentioned also their union, and he mentioned their fertility; but this last concomitant of lust he blushed to mention. And no wonder if mere talkers are ashamed of that which we see parents themselves, so interested in their function, blush to think of." Shame is proper to these things, it is only the vomit-inducing modern world that revels in them.

Kathy Farrelly said...

I thought yours was a very good comment over at D's blog, SP. Someone sent me a link to that post and asked my opinion. I took a brief look.. What a marathon thread. I have mainly lost interest in that blog as it appears to be getting like a mini "The Spearhead" Another place I never visit anymore either.

Anyway getting back to your comment... It sums up my feelings perfectly..Escoffier did indeed cop some undeserved flack..

One has to be careful commenting (as a woman in particular) about PUA'S and sluts..Escoffier pointed out only that PUA'S as part of the problem never seemed to be taken to task over it.. He was pounced on immediately..

In fact there's a suggestion of tacit approval amongst some of the commenters, there, (re PUA's) and that PUA's are somehow morally superior to the sluts.. Some even proclaiming that PUA's are doing other men a favour.

Sort of legitimizing that kind of behaviour... I must say, that that sort of thing bothers me. Fornicators of either sex are commiting a grave sin (from the Catholic-Christian perspective) and will all end up in the same place..

As you say it is hard to justify fornication..And yes, many insights into female sexuality were gained through Roissy and Roosh, even though they appear to be on the road to hell..

It's never to late for a road to Damascus moment for either of them though. ;).

"A society loses its stability once it entrenches promiscuity and anyone promoting the ideology is sawing away at the branch he is sitting on."

Well said SP.
I hope you don't mind me commenting on your comment here. I didn't see the point in commenting over at D's as I did not want to become involved in any imbroglio. In any case I have no interest( nor the time) to go back there anymore.

A society loses its stability once it entrenches promiscuity and anyone promoting the ideology is sawing away at the branch he is sitting on.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Oops! Sorry for repeating your quote twice.. :D

The Social Pathologist said...

@Kathy

One has to be careful commenting (as a woman in particular) about PUA'S and sluts..Escoffier pointed out only that PUA'S as part of the problem never seemed to be taken to task over it.. He was pounced on immediately..

Kathy, the manosphere is a diverse bunch, the intellectually serious are few and far between, most commentators being hedonists trying to optimise their pleasure or misogynists trying to justify their hate. The only way that you can criticise the PUA's is if you think fornication is wrong, i.e if you are a traditionalist Christian. But many of the "Save the West" types would be horrified and a tightening of sexual mores. They are simply unable to connect the dots.

And yes, many insights into female sexuality were gained through Roissy and Roosh, even though they appear to be on the road to hell..

There is a soul of goodness in all things evil. Wise people will make use of the times that they live in. If there is any benefit (perhaps for future generations) of our current times it will be in demonstrating the faults of traditionalism and the faults of modernity. I do think that the one good thing these guys have done is disabuse men of the false bill of goods they have been sold with regard to female sexuality.

The "sanitised" version of romance ignored female sexuality almost entirely and yet it is a powerful motivant in female mate choice and her personal happiness. Furthermore it kept giving the encouraging good men to give women something they did not want, frustrating both of them.

As for romance in marriage, I think that those that proffer it certainly don't inhabit the world that I or my patients live in.

I suppose intimacy is complete when you can turn to your partner and say "how about a quickey?" without a second thought. At that point there is no more pretense or self consciousness your partner and you are one.

trent13 said...

"Subjugation at least recognises the validity of flesh's existence whilst keeping it under control, extermination denies the flesh's right to exist. And it appears that this puritan element of Christianity has had the upper hand in shaping our understanding of human sexuality and love.

Romantic love, as idealised, was always above the waist. Somehow, it was always a tender and romantic thing. Fluids, smells and noises were never mentioned; and the idea of a man and woman, shagging each other senseless, doesn't quite fit the fit the picture of romantic love. "

Lol

Kathy Farrelly said...

"I suppose intimacy is complete when you can turn to your partner and say "how about a quickey?" without a second thought. At that point there is no more pretense or self consciousness your partner and you are one."

You're dead right SP..

Speaking for myself.. and maybe this is TMI.. I will pop my head into hubby's office when he is busy working and say with a smile "Feel like a root?"

I have never had a knockback yet!

Also, I like to kid around... I might ring him on a day that he is flat out and casually mention.. "So, I suppose a root is out of the question, then?"

Of course it usually is (unless he is working very close to home and can pop home for 15 minutes ;) )

But we both have a good laugh and he knows that I am thinking of him.. It sets the tone ..

And.. there is always the evening..

7man said...

@SP
One of strangest phenomenon that I've ever observed, is seeing what happens to men in couples with fertility issues. A lot of men become sexually dysfunctional when their wives begin to relate to them as inseminators; no seriously. A lot of women, aiming to get pregnant, arrange for sex to occur at a certain time to ensure the maximum probability of fertility. It becomes a hop on, hop off kind of affair. After a couple of cycles of this, a lot of men just turn off sex because they feel like the woman is only using them for their sperm. Sex literally becomes an inseminatory act.

I can attest to this. When my ex-wife was infertile, this is what happened. It is the only time in my life that I experienced impotence. Upon reflection I realized that she was TAKING my sperm and not RECEIVING my sperm. I was being used for her desires and it was not at all for mutual pleasure. The dynamic was reversed. This unnatural dynamic was always present in the marriage due to other (undiagnosed) BPD traits.

Anonymous Protestant said...

I must agree with JMSmith regarding the Puritans. They were hardly the asexuals that came to inhabit New England 200 or so years later, and given the amount of ale and other alcoholic beverages that were produced from rather early on in the Colony the notion of them as boring prudes doesn't hold up under historical inspection.

The modern word is, in my opinion, used as a slur thanks to the Romantics ("The Scarlet Letter" was written in 1850, for example). Just as the Middle Ages became "Dark Ages" when written about anti-Christian intellectuals, so the Puritans have been misrepresented by the Romantics. And the term has been mis-defined ever since.

There is a couple in my church who included verses from the Song of Songs in their wedding. I believe that that they chose to read more verses to each other in their marriage bed. They now have three children and seem to be as happily married as ever. This seems like an excellent plan for any married Christians.

There's certainly nothing prudish about Solomon's Song to his wife, is there?