a clarification

I feel a need to clarify my last post, which upon review looks crude and harsh. It lacks the refinement of an enlightened truth. let me reiterate. there is no such thing as "love". in the last post, i labelled it a "vague feeling people get before they bed each other". So how do i explain platonic love, romantic love etc? firstly, i think it is neccessary to clarify that love between friends is out of the question here, since i am pondering this in relation to marriage. the second instance holds the crux of this argument - romantic love is sexual.

Some people say sex is the expression of love, but i think "love" is an expression of sex. It's another displacment in a civilized, repressed order. oops. there i go with the old man Freud again. I dont think he literally meant that humans are driven by sex, i think what he actually meant to say was that humans are driven by the politics of it. the invisible ties of power, intimacy and emotion that drive the act of it. Not the carnal intercourse alone. the act alone is a displacement of some sort of hidden aggression that has to emerge because of it's repression. I dont think humans have a natural instinct to "love" but instead to "possess, gain authority over, dominate". Parental love is another matter although if you think about it a large part of a parent's duty is precisely the latter. You love your friend because you have them, and they are yours to keep.

There is the other school that believes that to love is to submit, and be possessed. I used to belong to that school. But the stark realization fell upon me that you cannot submit unless someone wants to dominate, since "love" involves 2 parties. So you find that someone, and you play a delicate game of balancing the power struggle. But it doesnt matter who submits to who, because objectively speaking the nature of the relationship is the same. the politics played out in sexual terms does not change.

So back to the idea that romantic love is always sexual. let me clarify for those in denial. there is no such thing as non-sexual romantic love. The concept only came about when Christianity took over the world and non-sexual love was used to explain God's benevolent love to mankind. Anything with sexual connotations came to be "impure, bad, evil" only after the coming of Christianity and subsequently polarized is the notion of love. That one should "strive" for the opposite of impure love is yet another Christian conception. Nobody said that was truly the case or the nature of man. So this notion of "love" as we know it, is merely another artificial construct and really masks what is a sexual bond of politics between two people.

Anyway, if you take my words literally, you're really a dimwit. i'm expressing the phenomenon we call "love" as that mysterious bond between two people, the undercurrent of all undercurrents driving their actions. I'm not saying we shouldn't love. What i AM saying though, is that we should not expect "love" to happen or be there, which in that sense, makes us humans much less disillusioned when we don't encounter the disappointment.