Haven't been on the site for ages. . .
I've been reading this book published in 1976, Illusion and Disillusion: The Self in Love and Marriage.
Looks to be a school book, as they have a recap at the end of the chapters and questions that could be for homework. . .
It's really interesting.
One of the points made deals with Romanticism, and Victorianism. In the 12th century there was the idea that love was for an idol, such as courtly ove from a knight to his queen. Love for something from afar, an idol not to be touched or stained, a pure, innocent love. Chastity. This derived from the Christian contempt for sex. Impossible between man and wife. Therefore love in marriage was impossible.
Then love changed could be for a mistress, including sex. But love and sex had no part in marriage. A "woman reserved her loyalty for her husband, and her love for her gallant." "Love and marriage were irreconcilable."
Then love, sex and marriage could be a complete package, as they are supposed to be today. "Love is the ultimate justification for marriage; marriage alone justifies sex; sex and love are therefore the two basic hallmarks of the marital union and neither sex nor love are culturally acceptable outside of marriage." Yet this romantic love is unrealistic. We expect the chemical, heart fluttering feeling in the beginning stages of a relationship to last past the honeymoon. Romanticism creates unrealistic expectations which "breed disillusionment, despair, and resentment."
"Advertising, which is aimed not only at the unmarried but increasingly at the married as well, uses a blend of romance and sex to lure the consumer. Sex is packaged as the ticket to romance; the romantic illusion is, in fact, the acceptable cultural cover for using sex to sell merchandise. One suspects that this implication-romance justifies sex-makes it possible tor the general populace to accept sexual connotations. Without the romantic motif, we would be face to face with sex for its own sake. Perhaps this would be more honest but, as advertisers know quite well, it would not sell. The citizens of this country are not ready to view sex objectively."
They go on to discuss porn, the "frank embracing of physical sexual pleasure without any reference to love, commitment, value or meaning."
Where we had puritanism before, now we have an reaction is the other direction: neopuritanism:
"Sin used to mean giving into one's sexual desires; it now means not having full sexual expression. Our contemporary puritan holds that it is immoral not to express your libido. This all means of course, that people not only have to learn to perform sexually but have to make sure, at the same time, that they can do so without letting themselves go in passion or unseemly commitment- the latter of which may be interpreted as exerting unhealthy demand upon the partner. The Victorian person sought to have love without falling into sex; the modern person seeks to have sex without falling into love."
This unrealistic love has moved many in our western society to an opposite of extreme, where love has no part in sex, where fucking with love is weird!
I really am tempted to quote the whole fucking chapter!
"we use sex (lust or libido) to replace eros, which combines physical and psychic intimacy." "Sex can be defined fairly adequately in physiological terms as consisting of the building up of bodily tensions and their release. Eros, in contrast, is the experiencing of the personal intentions and meaning of the act. Whereas sex is a rhythm of stimulus and response, eros is a state of being...eros seeks union with the other person in delight and passion, and the procreating of new dimensions of experience which broaden and deepen the being of both persons."
"Eros is a release of id and affect, sharing and communication. Eros is the deep inner urge to know the other, much as the ancient Hebrew word for know means sexual knowledge. Yet to know only sexually is not to know fully. Eros is the physical abandon of lovers who are enabled to abandon because they care, feel, and trust"
So what do you think?
I've been reading this book published in 1976, Illusion and Disillusion: The Self in Love and Marriage.
Looks to be a school book, as they have a recap at the end of the chapters and questions that could be for homework. . .
It's really interesting.
One of the points made deals with Romanticism, and Victorianism. In the 12th century there was the idea that love was for an idol, such as courtly ove from a knight to his queen. Love for something from afar, an idol not to be touched or stained, a pure, innocent love. Chastity. This derived from the Christian contempt for sex. Impossible between man and wife. Therefore love in marriage was impossible.
Then love changed could be for a mistress, including sex. But love and sex had no part in marriage. A "woman reserved her loyalty for her husband, and her love for her gallant." "Love and marriage were irreconcilable."
Then love, sex and marriage could be a complete package, as they are supposed to be today. "Love is the ultimate justification for marriage; marriage alone justifies sex; sex and love are therefore the two basic hallmarks of the marital union and neither sex nor love are culturally acceptable outside of marriage." Yet this romantic love is unrealistic. We expect the chemical, heart fluttering feeling in the beginning stages of a relationship to last past the honeymoon. Romanticism creates unrealistic expectations which "breed disillusionment, despair, and resentment."
"Advertising, which is aimed not only at the unmarried but increasingly at the married as well, uses a blend of romance and sex to lure the consumer. Sex is packaged as the ticket to romance; the romantic illusion is, in fact, the acceptable cultural cover for using sex to sell merchandise. One suspects that this implication-romance justifies sex-makes it possible tor the general populace to accept sexual connotations. Without the romantic motif, we would be face to face with sex for its own sake. Perhaps this would be more honest but, as advertisers know quite well, it would not sell. The citizens of this country are not ready to view sex objectively."
They go on to discuss porn, the "frank embracing of physical sexual pleasure without any reference to love, commitment, value or meaning."
Where we had puritanism before, now we have an reaction is the other direction: neopuritanism:
"Sin used to mean giving into one's sexual desires; it now means not having full sexual expression. Our contemporary puritan holds that it is immoral not to express your libido. This all means of course, that people not only have to learn to perform sexually but have to make sure, at the same time, that they can do so without letting themselves go in passion or unseemly commitment- the latter of which may be interpreted as exerting unhealthy demand upon the partner. The Victorian person sought to have love without falling into sex; the modern person seeks to have sex without falling into love."
This unrealistic love has moved many in our western society to an opposite of extreme, where love has no part in sex, where fucking with love is weird!
I really am tempted to quote the whole fucking chapter!
"we use sex (lust or libido) to replace eros, which combines physical and psychic intimacy." "Sex can be defined fairly adequately in physiological terms as consisting of the building up of bodily tensions and their release. Eros, in contrast, is the experiencing of the personal intentions and meaning of the act. Whereas sex is a rhythm of stimulus and response, eros is a state of being...eros seeks union with the other person in delight and passion, and the procreating of new dimensions of experience which broaden and deepen the being of both persons."
"Eros is a release of id and affect, sharing and communication. Eros is the deep inner urge to know the other, much as the ancient Hebrew word for know means sexual knowledge. Yet to know only sexually is not to know fully. Eros is the physical abandon of lovers who are enabled to abandon because they care, feel, and trust"
So what do you think?