|
From the Introduction: Since people often disagree about what love is or what the word love means, I am proposing a usage that is meant to be clear and that is also meant to capture the important features of the varied ideas people now have about the subject.... My approach to this subject is meant to be rational and logical, analytic and scrutinizing, not mystical, religious, poetic, or psychoanalytic. I will try to show clearly and logically the reasons supporting what I say. Logic and emotions are not totally incompatible; though logic cannot be understood emotionally, emotions can be understood (in various degrees) and discussed logically....
From Chapter 1: Personal Versus Professional Relationships The distinction is usually made between personal relationships and professional ones. I think it is an unimportant distinction for improving one's relationships with other people. I shall make little use of it, since I believe that anything one might want to cover under professional ethics or professionally proper behavior will also fall under the more general category simply of ethical behavior or proper behavior. I will dwell more on this in the chapter on ethics. Let me just say for now that professional relationships between people, simply because they are between people, are also then personal relationships.... ... I am not denying there are legal and organizational distinctions between personal and professional relationships; I am only denying that the distinction between personal and professional relationships is of any use as such in understanding the relationships we have in our lives, and I am denying that the distinction and the legal and institutional rules or codes are of much use in determining our real ethical obligations or describing correct conduct toward others (which is a large aspect of the relationships we have with others). Some are not even good ethics; and some only serve the group, not the public. They are misnamed as ethics, and instead should be called sanctioned practices. This latter claim will be further supported in the chapter dealing with ethics. It is, I maintain, easier and more useful and beneficial to think of all relationships between people as being personal relationships, with some having special circumstances (whether for personal or business reasons) that may make them different from others in terms of the behavior, thoughts, and feelings that are psychologically or ethically appropriate....
From Chapter 2: Love, Some Popular Views ...how it feels to love when you are doing dishes or scrubbing floors or running a mile or having intercourse or reading a book or taking an exam or kissing for the first time someone you have silently, secretly, and shyly worshiped a long time, or saying "I do" at the alter, or attending a funeral or feeling guilt or terror or contentedly watching your loved one sleep by your side, or feeling pride, performing surgery, or drowning are very different kinds of things. And this is true whether you are talking about love for a spouse of fifty years, love for a first girlfriend (boyfriend), a spouse on a honeymoon, a son or brother, or clergyman who has been kind in a time of need, your favorite aunt, favorite elementary school teacher, the newest Hollywood (or office) sex symbol, and maybe even your love for pizza. And this is only about how it feels to love; yet I will argue later that love is more than just a (kind of) feeling anyway. But all this is not to say that love is so unique for different people or at different times that nothing of general importance and description can be said about it. Though love is a variety of things and involves a variety of things, the varieties themselves can be meaningfully explained and described, and they can be explained and described simply in terms of everyday experience rather than described away in scientific (or pseudo-scientific) jargon or theory. And though they can be described in specific, accurate, logical, non-mystical and non-mythical prose which will make reflection, decision, and discussion of love easier and clearer, this will not thereby make love seem prosaic. And it may even heighten both the value of love itself and the meaning, poignancy, and perception poetry about it provides.... ... In a survey of college students reported in J. Richard Udry's The Social Context of Marriage, 40% believed love was a feeling or kind of attraction and said things like: "Love represents a magnetic attraction between two persons." "Love is a feeling of high emotional affiliation...which sends a person's ego to dizzying heights." "Love is the emotional feeling two people receive when they both have sexual and Platonic love in the proper proportions." But 20% thought love had more to do with companionship and compatibility, and they said things like: "Love is the physical and mental compatibility of two people." "Love is the end result of a mature union of two compatible personalities." "Love is helping the other person whenever he needs it...being his companion. It's having common goals, dreams, and ambitions." "Love is doing things together and liking it." Still another 20% thought of love in terms of "giving": "Love is giving--time, understanding, yourself." "Love is to give of oneself to another." "Love is giving trust." "Love is a give and take relationship--and mostly give." And 17% responded they thought of love in terms of security: "Love is having security in being wanted and knowing you have someone to rely on." "When a person is in love, the world is right and a person has security." Finally, 3% looked at love in terms of efficiency, practicality, or roles: "Love for the girl is cooking for him, washing his clothes and keeping the home in order. For the man it is providing security, safety, and helping his wife." "Love to me is faithfulness to my mate and caring for our children." I list the results of this survey to show people do use the word differently, though it is easy to prove this yourself simply by asking a few friends how they use the word "love" or what it means to them; you will quickly see a wide difference. Or tell your parents you love someone you know they disapprove of and see how quickly they try to show you what you have is not love for that person but hero worship, infatuation, sexual longings (being in lust or in heat, not in love), rebellious disrespect for your parents, or whatever. I would like to take the opportunity to show rather briefly for now what is wrong with thinking of love as any of the categories in the above survey, and thereby to show some of the kinds of things a correct or useful theory of love must take into account and thus explain or consider....
From Chapter 3: The Three Important Aspects of Relationships Every relationship has the potential to involve (1) emotional or feeling aspects, (2) satisfaction or dissatisfaction aspects, and (3) good or bad (that is, ethical) aspects. There is an overlap here since satisfactions, to the extent they are pleasurable sensations, are both feelings and good things; dissatisfactions are feelings and bad things. But I want to make and use these distinctions because I want to be able to talk about the ethical aspects of relationships over and above their joys and dissatisfactions since many things may be both enjoyable and harmful, enjoyable in terms of pleasurable sensations but harmful in terms of side-effects, consequences, or some other relevant factor.... ... I believe that these three categories--feelings, satisfactions, and ethics--can profitably be considered separately, even though often they do not occur separately in life. I further believe that these categories involve most, if not all, the significant aspects of any relationship and that most of the important things concerning relationships will involve one, two, or all three of these categories....
From Chapter 4: (1) The Emotional Aspect -- Feelings And it is important to be able to understand one's feelings and emotions in order to understand what behavior they might warrant. It is also important to understand other people's feelings. It would hardly be right, say, to take sexual advantage of another's feelings of gratitude or a student's intellectual attraction just because the other person or student confused those feelings with romantic or sexual attraction or with feelings of love. And this is not even to talk of understanding one's emotions simply for the personal sake of self-knowledge apart from any actions they may involve or engender. I myself think such self-knowledge is important and interesting....
From Chapter 5: (2) The Satisfaction Aspect Simply being attracted to someone, even in cases where there are no outside impediments thwarting your being together, does not insure that they and their actions will bring you any happiness or satisfaction. In fact, in far too many cases quite the opposite is the result. One of the hardest kinds of relationships to end or endure is that which hangs on because the two people have some sort of attraction for each other even though whenever they are together one or both make the other thoroughly miserable. Equally but opposite, finding someone unattracting
does not necessarily dispose you to find all their actions unpleasant,
disappointing, or dissatisfying. You may, for example, enjoy playing tennis
with someone you have no feelings for one way or the other, or even with
someone you do not like. (In fact, when you play well against someone you
dislike, win, and have to work very hard to do so because they are a good
player, it might be a rather exhilarating experience.)...
From Chapter 6: (3) The Goodness and Badness (Ethical) Aspect Insofar as pleasure, satisfaction, joy, contentment, happiness, etc. are good, and displeasure, grief, sorrow, disappointment, pain, etc. are bad, the satisfaction-dissatisfaction aspect of relationships is also a part of the goodness-badness aspect. But there is much more to life's goodness or badness than just satisfaction and happiness on one hand and dissatisfaction and unhappiness on the other hand. Therefore it is necessary to look at more in a relationship than whether it, or its individual acts, are satisfying or not, in order to determine whether over-all it is a good relationship or not.... ...if pleasure were the only good to be sought, and if we wanted the best for our children, we should rear them not to be industrious, conscientious, intelligent, sensitive creatures, but should teach them to be just the opposite. They could be far happier if they were insensitive to tragedy and the sorrows of others, if they never aspired to goals which they might fail to attain, if they essentially came home from whatever untaxing jobs they might hold in order to be able mindlessly to watch whatever was on television and drink beer in a contentedly cheerful state. We could probably fairly easily train people to like these sorts of things, but we do not intentionally do that because we, correctly, believe people are capable of better ways of living, even if less pleasurable ways....
From Chapter 7: Independence of the Three Aspects of Relationships Attractions, satisfactions, and the general or ethical value of relationships are independent of each other in the sense that people can, and do, sometimes become attracted to people who do not bring them much pleasure or who are not necessarily good for them, just as they sometimes do not become attracted to people whose actions they do enjoy and/or who are good for them. Of course, sometimes people do become attracted to people whose actions are good and/or satisfying, sometimes perhaps even because of that. Sometimes it can be particularly easy to become attracted to someone who treats you kindly, especially when that kindness is most needed. Yet sometimes people become attracted to others while knowing little or nothing about how satisfying or dissatisfying, good or bad, their character or actions might be; some instant attractions are like that.... ...And at times, even in the best of relationships, a new acquaintance, one who you may have little if any feelings for at the time, may be somebody it is more enjoyable to be around... .... In the television play Silent Night, Lonely Night, the part played by Lloyd Bridges is that of a man whose wife is in a mental hospital, unable to do much but stare into space. Their only child had drowned. He says at one point that his mother always said the best part of a meal was sharing it, but he says that Christmas eve he finds best shared with strangers, not friends. He cannot bear to be with friends who know his sorrow and who, he feels, obligatorily have him over to try to cheer him up. He would rather spend that particular time with someone who does not know of his sadness and the particular melancholy that comes with Christmas and the new year....
From Chapter 8: The Meaning of Love W. Newton-Smith, in an article called "A Conceptual Investigation of Love" in Alan Montefiore's Philosophy and Personal Relations, talks of paradigm cases such as Romeo and Juliet, Abelard and Heloise, and Caesar and Cleopatra to describe the kinds of love relationships he is talking about. I am not that sure I know how these people felt or acted toward each other but I think Newton-Smith gets the point across that he means to talk about the kind of relationships that I call "romantic" in the general sense. However, he goes on to make what I think is an error in trying further to describe this kind of love in order to make clear he is not speaking of cases of parental or other sorts of non-romantic love. I think his paradigm cases perhaps mislead him to this error, but it is an error many people make without that excuse. He writes "... so attention will be confined to cases of love which involve sexuality ... sexual feelings, desires, acts and so on. Thus the stipulation excludes from ... consideration cases of fraternal love, paternal love and other cases not involving sexuality." He later says that sexuality can serve as a criterial mark for distinguishing the sorts of paradigm cases he mentioned earlier. Even with his later refinements of this criteria, I think he has made an error, has eliminated too many of the kinds of relationships he has wanted to discuss, and has injected sex into the analysis of relationships far too early and made it far more important than it needs to be or is. Certainly I do not mean by romance all those or just those attractions which are sexual in nature. Some romantic feelings may include some sort of sexual desire, but not all do; and even of those that do, the desire may not be for intercourse but perhaps simply kissing, hugging, or holding hands....
From Chapter 9: Infatuation, Friendship, and Love On my analysis of the meaning of love I think we can give reasonable explanations of the difference between love and infatuation, and also the difference between love and friendship.... Love and infatuation It seems to me that the best way to look at the difference between love and infatuation is that...
From Chapter 10: Love at First Sight Love at first sight then seems perhaps better considered to be attraction at first sight. And the attraction may be that of love -- the same attraction may remain as the relationship develops and bestows its unfolding benefits and blessings -- but that cannot be known right away. For the relationship might not hold or develop sufficient joy and good to warrant being called love; and the attraction, whether it lingers or fades, will only then have been infatuation at first sight....
From Chapter 11: Importance of Various (Kinds of) Aspects The question may arise as to whether certain (types of) satisfactions may be more important than others. For example, is it more important to have a good sexual relationship or to have a good talking or intellectual relationship? This question has three different senses. It asks (sense 1), are there some (kinds of) satisfactions that are (ethically) better than others for the people involved, or (sense 2) are there some (kinds of) satisfactions that make a relationship more enjoyable or more happy than other (kinds of) satisfactions. It also asks (sense 3) whether there are some (kinds of) satisfactions that make the relationship more likely ... to fail or grow stronger, more likely to end or endure....
From Chapter 12: Sex and Love Having said that sexual attraction is neither necessary nor sufficient for a relationship to be one of love and having claimed that no kind of satisfaction as such is, in general -- without reference to particular people at particular times -- necessarily more important than any other, it is necessary to discuss sex in particular since many, perhaps most, Americans (mistakenly, I believe) think sex somehow stands apart from the other things in life, and they endow it with a psychological significance far beyond the morally important considerations of pregnancy or ... disease....
From Chapter 13: The Impossibility of Sexual Communication Regardless of almost all the most recent popular beliefs and articles on the topic, sex (or any touching) is not a form of communication! It does not communicate love, care, concern, tender feelings, or anything. (One can imagine a Bert Reynolds or Richard Pryor movie scene where either of them meets some beautiful, but insecure, woman who very soon asks him to show her he cares about her -- by making love to her. Surely Reynolds or Pryor would be able to give the camera one of their most devilish, gleaming smirks. I would claim that the absurdity of the request as a demonstration of caring or love is not diminished by occurring instead on the third or eighth date or on a wedding night or thereafter.) Neither is bad sex or no sex a communication of lack of love, lack of concern, lack of tender feelings, or whatever. Sex is not an expression of anything, let alone of love. Further, I think it is risky and potentially harmful to believe that it is....
From Chapter 14: Being Loved for Yourself Often the lament is heard that one does not feel loved for herself or for himself, but instead is loved or liked for some characteristic or set of characteristics he or she has -- wealth, beauty, personality, physical attributes, job, social prestige, special skill, or whatever. It is easy to see why the lament may be justified with regard to such often superficial or impersonal things as wealth, prestige, or job (when the job is only a means to earn a living, not a reflection of genuine personal interest or inner self.... ... When the lament is because one feels loved for one's personality, skills, or particular actions -- things that seem closer to "self" -- it is not always clear how justified the lament is or whether it really means what it seems to mean on the surface. It would seem odd to want to be loved, enjoyed, and appreciated for something other than one's actions, looks, character, personality, and mind, etc. What else would there be? Is there a "self" that can be loved apart from these traits? And doesn't one have to "earn" love in some way anyway, or is it supposed to be totally unconditional? (Though if it is totally unconditional, how is it then personal?) Is someone asking to be loved even if they were (a) totally different (person) also? What point would there be in that? ...
From Chapter 15: Loving More Than One Person at the Same Time Can a person love more than one person at the same time? "At the same time" seems to be the important qualifier, since there is little question that many people can love more than one person romantically at different times. We accept without question generally that one can go from a past love to a future love in case the past love relationship ends (divorce, death of a spouse, breaking up of a dating relationship or a youthful romance). Some widows or widowers never seek or find another love because of some sense of devotion to their departed mate, some sense of already achieved completeness that should not be tampered with and possibly tarnished in some way by a relationship that turns out not to be as good, some sense of pointlessness of beginning again with a new partner, or some fear of it. Such people may be incapable of loving more than one person, but most people seem able at different times in their lives to become involved in a new loving relationship when a former one has ended.... ... According to my analysis of relationships and love, I think it is easy to be clear in what sense one can romantically love more than one person at a time, and in what senses one cannot....
From Chapter 16: Commitment and Loving More Than One Person A marriage vow is essentially a promise; and promises, just because they are made, bestow an obligation on you to try to keep them; that is the point of them. Marriage vows do not say "love, honor, and cherish till death do us part, forty thousand miles, or the first sign of problems, whichever comes first". If your spouse learns to play bridge and wants to do so, and you do not; or if your spouse leaves the cap off the toothpaste tube, and you do not want it left off, that is hardly grounds for divorce or separation, but perhaps for separate toothpaste tubes or some separate times for each of you to follow the pursuits you are interested in that the other is not. However, any promise can lose its obligatory force if some conflicting ethical principles are strong enough to override it. This does not mean whim or some weak conflict.... ...Marriage vows, being promises -- solemn, and often public promises about a long term relationship -- impose an obligation on those taking them, but even marriage vows can be justifiably broken or dissolved under certain circumstances; or put another way, they can lose their bindingness just as any promise can. This should not be over a trivial, petty, or reasonably reparable problem or occurrence; but it should be where the problem is incurable, or where the cure is unfair to one or both, or the harm done so great that it cannot be forgiven, forgotten, or ignored and abided, or the potential bad so great that it should not be condoned or risked....
From Chapter 17: Rejection and Acceptance Hence, whether any two people hit it off, particularly in some romantic or attracting way, and particularly at first sight or first communication, seems to me to have a lot more to do with luck or coincidence than with anything else. It seems to me to be a function of the two of them together more than it is the result of the characteristics by themselves of either one of them as an individual. Few people attract everyone and few repulse everyone. A person rejected at first encounter by one person may be attractive at first encounter (even the same kind of encounter) to another.... ...in personal relationships the same kind of thing happens to nearly everyone. Some people like you the way you are or because of it; others do not. Short of your being harmful or patently offensive to another person, rejection or attraction (particularly, but not only, at first sight) and getting along well with someone else are such a matter of luck and circumstance that in a way there is little in it of a personal nature. That is, it should not really be a matter of self-pride to hit it off with someone (since there are lots of people you would not) nor of self-defeat when you do not (since there are lots of people with whom you would). Getting along well with another person, or not getting along well with them is as much a function of the other person -- their character, desires, abilities, interests, tastes, chemistry and personality -- as it is of your character, appearance, abilities, personality, chemistry, etc. Hence, acceptance or rejection should not generally be taken as a reflection of just you alone, but of the two of you in combination....
From Chapter 18: Care and Concern My main point about care and concern, is that they are, except in certain circumstances, no substitute for proper actions -- actions that promote or preserve well-being and satisfaction, regardless of whether they are accompanied or brought about by care and concern or not. If one is ill or drowning, it would be better to be properly diagnosed or rescued by an uncaring computer or robot than to be in the presence of the most concerned person with no medical knowledge or swimming ability. Similarly, in a relationship; in general good intentions are insufficient when better or more satisfying actions are needed or desired. ...Care and concern are certainly nice to have in relationships, but they are not so important, I don't believe, as correct (good and/or satisfying) behavior. I have intentionally left out of the analysis that for A to love B, A must care about B's well-being. First, it should be noted most people would probably not want to say that for A to love B, A actually has to benefit B, since one can love another and want to do and try to do what is right for the other without being successful in that attempt. A may not even know what would be good for B, let alone be able to bring it about if he or she did know. But I believe that it is not even a necessary condition for A to (be correctly said to) love B that A even tries to satisfy or do good things for B. I will argue later, concerning Harry Stack Sullivan's definition of love given in Lederer and Jackson's Mirages of Marriage, that concern for another is not sufficient for there to be love, other than in some Christian or humanistic or humanitarian sense, if that. What I wish to explain here is that it is also not a necessary condition....
From Chapter 19: Love and Marriage ... Besides just needing some private time, there will be times when you would like to be together but your moods and/or interests conflict; and there will probably be times when one or both of you are unhappy, angry, or disappointed with the other and do not want to interact. One of you may be interested in a sporting event on television when the other wants to have a serious conversation about something; one may have had a melancholy day and be in the mood for viewing deep drama while the other is in a giddy mood and wants to attend a light musical comedy. One may be in the mood for sex; the other, not. One may be wide awake and in the mood for conversation or going out while the other is exhausted and ready to turn in for the night. There are better and worse, and more and less understanding, ways of resolving these differences in moods and desires. I will discuss some of them later in the ethics section. In terms of anger or disappointment, it is amazing how many different things a person can do that can be upsetting if you are not in the frame of mind to find them cute, overlook them, or ignore them. Some days that frame of mind is difficult to attain. In any roommate situation -- sibling, college, camp, army, marriage, or whatever -- friction can occur over almost anything at any time. One partner is compulsively early for appointments or social engagements; the other late. One believes in scrupulous sanitation, the other lets the cat eat out of their plate at the dinner table. One person seems to always find some reason to be busy with church work, civic tasks, career, or friends when the other feels it is time to spend some time together or with the whole family. One person seems to the other to spend too much time and energy on their mother or father. One partner tampers with, moves, or puts away the other's fragile treasures in a manner that the other does not consider careful enough. Etc., etc. Many of these things are not important when all else in life is well; but unfortunately all else is not always well, and so sometimes even minor irritations can take on monumental proportions to even the most forgiving, tolerant, and patient partner. And many partners, not being so patient nor forgiving, do not require much cause to become annoyed....
From Chapter 20: The Future of a Relationship In most of this book I consider the amount of value, joy, and attraction in relationship at some particular time. But you can also use these dimensions to think about and analyze likely future trends in a relationship. One can, even in the midst of a powerful attraction, realize that that attraction may (soon) fade or change its form. One may realize that present satisfaction is due only to temporary circumstances and that when those circumstances change, so probably will the joy the relationship brings. One may fairly well predict in what ways a relationship will get better or worse....
From Chapter 21: Love and Change and Rational Prediction Although there are people who change very little in their desires, interests, and abilities as they grow older, many people do change, and some, quite substantially. The problem is how to select a mate that will change in ways that are likely to be beneficial or at least undamaging to the relationship, instead of detrimental to it....
From Chapter 22: Jealousy I think there are two types of jealousy, or at least two different kinds of conditions under which it occurs. One sort is rational and justified; the other, not, though it is at least as powerful, probably even moreso, and is certainly very devastating when it occurs.... ... The kind of jealousy that is often so miserably debilitating though, and irrational, is the sort by a partner that would deny a loved one happiness or benefit from another which in no way would impinge upon their relationship with that partner. The only remotely rational element to this kind of jealousy is the concern that such a relationship might later become one that so impinges; but insofar as it is not likely to later and does not now, jealousy of it is irrational. To call this kind of jealousy insane jealousy is in some cases simultaneously to describe the cause and the behavior it prompts....
From Chapter 23: Independence and Sharing But there is a further reason that I think it is important for people to be independent, or capable of independence, from each other; and that is that two whole, fully functioning people can bring far more to a relationship and to each other (as well as to themselves) than can two dependent "half" people. Two people who share full or "whole" lives and characters, bring to a relationship more than two people who share "half" lives....
From Chapter 24: "Meaningful" Relationships In the 1960's and '70's in particular many people were looking for what they called "meaningful" relationships. I even began writing this book as a short paper trying to analyze "meaningful personal relationships" as the subject, but I think that is a different and perhaps narrower notion than what needs to be covered in talking about love or personal relationships in general. I have come to suspect that people call a relationship a meaningful one when they believe at the time it occurs that it is making a somewhat profound and felt difference in their lives by satisfying a felt need or by making some change for the better in a way that is important to them.... ...In cases where an awareness of importance is present, but later the experience or relationship is felt to have been less good or less significant or less satisfying than thought at the time, we still tend to speak of the relationship or experience, because of the felt significance or change in our lives or attitudes at the time, as having been meaningful, but simply not as good or important as we thought it was at the time....
From Chapters 25 and 26: About the Subject of Ethics This and the next chapter are meant to serve as an introduction to ethics, particularly for those who have never had a good course in it. I believe it is important to have such a section because too many people do not realize what tremendous progress has been made in reflective ethical thought; and they then virtually begin from scratch in their ethical reflections and therefore too often reason from principles which, unknown to them, have been modified, refined, or disproved and abandoned through intense scrutiny and criticism over time. This section is not meant to be a complete summary of the history of ethics, but it is meant to be a readable and understandable introduction to many of those historically important methods, ideas, and principles that have modern relevance. I believe they will most accurately and readily help you resolve with reasonable people most of the kinds of ethical questions, issues, and disagreements that arise today, especially those in everyday life and in relationships.... (To find out
more about just these two chapters as "An Introduction to Ethics" -- which
you can purchase
From Chapter 27: Modification of the Analysis of Love The train case [in the previous chapter] points out an interesting flaw, however, in my analysis of love as it is stated. My criteria [includes] that for a relationship to be one of reciprocal love, it must be that both people are good for each other; and how good could it be for one to cause a train to run over his or her spouse? How good were the British officials being to their spouses when, if the story is true, they did not warn them to leave Coventry before the bombing? Yet we might, and I would, still want to say that the officials did love their families and would be loved by them even though they allowed harm to come to them, or allowed potential, yet avoidable, harm to befall them.... ...I wish to insert a necessary modification into my analysis of the ethical component or dimension of love, one which now can be understood without making the criteria seem difficult, unwieldy, or unnatural. The clause would exclude (from being unworthy of love) cases of causing or allowing harm (including even relatively minor things such as inconvenience or disappointment) to the loved or loving one if such harm is the result of overriding ethical obligations to others, or to self, when such overriding obligations are not unnecessarily brought on in the first place by the one doing the harm....
From Chapter 28: Good "For" and Good "To" ...I think that just following the ethical principles outlined in the preceding chapter, or just acting toward others with civility and etiquette are insufficient to help them maximize their capabilities. It takes the luck of the right two people coming together, people with the right coinciding interests and abilities. It is one thing to be properly parental to a child, or to be polite, civilized, and moderately good "to" someone else. It requires more than that to bring out qualities in them that only a few people might recognize in their undeveloped state, understand themselves, and understand how to develop. For example, Mickey Mantle's father (I believe) was very instrumental in developing his son's baseball playing talents. Mr. Mantle was very good for his son. Mozart's father (and the company he kept, along with the musical knowledge and love he had, and the kind of environment he surrounded his children with) was also extremely good for his son's early musical development. Had those sons been born to each others' father, however, neither one would likely have developed in the way they did, regardless of how good or loving either father would have been "to" the son. Similarly, two loving partners may be able to be good to each other -- fair, civilized, considerate, satisfying, exciting, kind, helpful, beneficial in many ways, etc. -- but it takes a special, and perhaps somewhat rare, blend of characteristics between two people for them to bring out the best in each other and in each others' worthy talents....
From Chapter 29: Ethical Principles and Spontaneity Since many people mistakenly equate having principles with the inability to act spontaneously, I would like to share one way in which spontaneity and principles can coincide. In many cases I see ethics as, in a sense, establishing boundaries of behavior, and it is within those boundaries that one is then free to be spontaneous. It is like childproofing a room or a fenced in yard so that a child may be put into that room or yard to play freely without hurting himself. You have taken out of those places any things that may harm the child, so he may freely do as he wants within those places. It is also like when, knowing that you deserve a peaceful and joyful vacation, you set aside certain "time boundaries" in which you are allowed to have a good time without having to be constantly on guard or in reflection about your otherwise normal occupational obligations....
From Chapter 30: Ethics and Sex Analysis and discussion might take some of the mystery out of personal relationships and sex; but it is not clear to me that the mystery is what causes the magic -- the beauty, the wonder, or the value -- in them. In fact, I rather think it is the mystery which causes the misery -- the misunderstanding, the grief, the sorrow, the confusion, and the unhappiness -- that so often occurs in relationships. And although a sex ethic developed solely in a monastery may not be very practical, neither I suspect, will be one that is developed solely in the bedroom. Passion and emotional closeness need to be experienced to be properly understood; but understanding needs to be exercised to guide passion and keep it in perspective....
From Chapter 31: Sex and Intimacy I believe, and I would like to make a case for those who do not believe it, that intimacy does not always involve sex or sexual intercourse; that sexual intercourse does not always involve (emotional) intimacy. And further, contrary to some views, even intimacy that is (primarily) sexual can be achieved without intercourse. Now there is one use and dictionary meaning of intimate denoting sexual intercourse specifically, as when someone asks whether a dating couple has "been intimate" yet, but that is different from the sense of intimacy involving emotional closeness, psychological openness, and the comfortable voluntary sharing of one's most personal and private or secret thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. with another. And it is this latter kind of intimacy, let me call it emotional intimacy, that I am particularly concerned with because I believe it is this kind of intimacy that people generally mean when they discuss seeking intimacy in a relationship, though I also want to discuss what I think is a related point involving intimacy that is primarily or strictly sexual....
From Chapter 32: Relationships After Sex In sex, as in many cases involving desires, sometimes desires are stronger or more important than they are at other times, and might have more weight as factors or reasons to consider. It is very easy to think sex is right when you are in the mood, and then later to feel disgusted, guilty, repentant, or remorseful, after one has indulged one's desires and spent one's passion. Inexperienced people, particularly younger people, often feel terrible after a sexual experience, whether it was intercourse or even something potentially less disastrous, such as petting or even kissing. You may feel you have led the other on or perhaps made a non-verbal commitment you did not really intend. You may feel you have taken advantage of another person's mood at the time, or that the other person took advantage of yours. Or, released from the influence of strong desire, you may now simply feel guilty that you gave into those desires rather than being able to overcome them as now you feel you could have. There is a distinction to be made in cases like this, since there is feeling guilty that is justified and feeling guilty that is not justified. And it is not just with regard to relationships and to sex. If the act you did was wrong and you only did it because your desires overpowered your reason, then feeling guilty is justified; but if the act was right and you only feel guilty afterward because afterward you would not choose or do the same thing if you had to choose then while not being in the mood, then you are feeling unjustifiably guilty because you are confusing making a choice under one set of circumstances with making a choice under another set.... ... Part of maturing is learning to know beforehand the likely consequences of various actions, including how you will feel afterward....
From Chapter 33: Problems of the Inexperienced Having just recounted some of the problems that an inexperienced or unknowledgeable person might encounter regarding the physical or technical aspects of sex, I would now like to point out some other problems that seem to arise fairly commonly for inexperienced people, problems more of an emotional or social nature, some of which have a relationship to sex but others which do not. (Let me first explain that "inexperienced" is not really quite the right word; "naive" or "unaware" is perhaps more accurate though each of these terms has a somewhat derogatory connotation I do not mean to imply. The reason "inexperienced" is inappropriate is that some people can be very understanding, aware, and knowledgeable with little experience, and some people gain little knowledge or wisdom no matter how much experience they have. The latter learn little from their experience. Age also seems to have little to do with this; many older people are inexperienced or unaware of these things. Some people have little knowledge about how to act concerning dating and friendship with the opposite sex, though they may have been married for years before becoming widowed or divorced. This may be particularly true for people who married the first person, or one of the first persons, they ever dated or loved; and even more particularly if their spouse then served as the only person of the opposite sex they allowed themselves to have any sort of friendship with.)...
From Chapter 34: On Being Used Since sex between two people is usually a matter of mutual and mutually voluntary interaction, I would like to comment on the notion of one of the two partner's being "used" or taken advantage of sexually. (I am speaking here only about sex that does not result in pregnancy; I will discuss sex involving pregnancy or reasonably possible pregnancy at the end of this chapter.) It at first seemed curious to me that girls or women usually seemed to be the ones who felt used or who accused boys or men of "using" them; curious, since they were involved in the same activity at the same time --a somewhat reciprocal activity that seems not to make one person a "user" and one a "used" subject. I think there are a number of circumstances and/or conditions that would be appropriately considered as ones in which one party is used by the other. But in these cases it will also be quite possible for the male to be the one who is "used" by the female, and not necessarily the one who is doing the "using"....
From Chapter 35: The Causes of Feelings This leads me to a point that I have mentioned briefly before, namely that my talk about relationships has not been specifically about heterosexual relationships, except perhaps in discussions of pregnancy. There are numerous cases where individuals develop romantic attractions that are at least statistically abnormal, and often not understandable at all to many others. There are homosexual attractions, there are romantic and/or sexual attractions between siblings and between parents and children. There are romantic attractions between people of vast age differences, age differences that would be romantically repugnant to most people. But in a sense, statistically speaking any particular romantic relationship is abnormal, in that for everyone who might be attracted to another romantically, there are probably thousands of people who would not be. This does not, however, generally bother anyone, except in certain cases of public displays of affection where at least one of the persons is particularly repulsive looking to the onlooker... ... Emotionally, of course, certain things may seem repugnant to certain people, but one has to be careful in trying to generalize about, or prescribe against, things just because they are personally emotionally repugnant. The idea of having sex with one of their parents is repugnant to most people, but happily it was not repugnant to their other parent. Even the idea of their parents having sex with each other is repugnant to most people, but that is not something we would want to forbid. There would be much celibacy indeed, if I were able to prevent women from having sex with anyone else just because the idea of my having sex with those women is repugnant to me. Whatever the good reasons there might be to try to prevent incest, homosexuality, etc., they ought not to be dependent just on our sense of repugnance. For example, there are genetic reasons against incest that would result in pregnancy; and there are the reasons for protecting minor children from sex since they are unable to give a realistic, fully informed, or meaningful consent to it....
From Chapter 36: Some Other Writers on Love I want to point out what I believe are some flaws in some particular points about love by other authors and also to point out what I think is an erroneous style of analysis of love. I believe some of these points and this style have been unduly influential. Others demonstrate how some views about love and about relationships can sound quite plausible at initial reading and yet still be seen to be erroneous under more reasonable scrutiny. I believe the proper approach to the subject is the analytic kind I have taken in this book, trying to put into a sensible and reasonable general perspective the kinds of feelings and experiences that are open to most people, and that happen to many; but a perspective that at the same time tries to reasonably take into account the realistic differences there are among people....
From Chapter 37: Some Personal Comments and Notions of a More Intuitive Nature I think our humanity lies in part not in our having experiences, because every animal has experiences, but in our reflecting and in our reflections upon those experiences. It lies not in our suffering but in our sorrow, our sympathy, our compassion, and our attempts to understand suffering and to remedy it. It lies even perhaps in our bitterness toward the perpetrators of needless suffering, but only in a reflected bitterness wrought from a sense of justice and our compassion toward the suffering victim, rather than from an immediacy of vengefulness. And our humanity lies not in our joyous moments but in our appreciation of those joyous moments. In short, our humanity lies in part in our attempts, and our successes, in trying to put our experiences into a meaningful perspective. And though not every joyful experience needs to be meaningful, rewarding, reflected on, or etched indelibly in memory for future savoring and appreciation, somewhere some experiences in everyone's life should be.... ... I have tried to express in this book the kinds of distinctions that have been helpful to me in becoming aware of what my wants and desires really were, what I thought was right and what was wrong, and why, what states others might be in, and what behavior was appropriate behavior and the appropriate response in such cases. I hope this book and these distinctions will be helpful to others. I think it can be, though I also think a certain amount of experience and reflection of one's own is important or necessary to know what one really wants oneself, and to really be able to understand this book. Unfortunately, experience is often a bitter, if not bitter-sweet, teacher....
|