Of course.Sex is usually the only part of a relationship where you are totally devoting yourself to the person you love.It is taking time out of your busy schedule to please and pleasure the one you love.Not wanting sex is a good sign the person your with no longer loves you.

Of course.Sex is usually the only part of a relationship where you are totally devoting yourself to the person you love.It is taking time out of your busy schedule to please and pleasure the one you love.Not wanting sex is a good sign the person your with no longer loves you.

Does romantic love require a sexual attraction?

I look forward to the kind of love born over 20 some years being together and not being tired of the other person. That kind of love, that kind of romance, has more going for it than any sort of lust or sexual ardor could muster.

April 13, 2006

Eros vs. Agape?

Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical has recently come out, which is somewhat of a big deal, as the first encyclical of a pontiff often sets the tone for his pontificate. Consequently, it is significant that the Holy Father should choose as his debut into the encyclical genre the subject of love. Entitled, Deus Caritas Est, or “God is Love,” Benedict’s letter to the world is a tour de force on what he rightly identifies as a vital, even urgent, subject that is desperately misunderstood by the modern world.

Of the encyclical’s many strengths, the one that struck me in particular was the Pope’s effort to refute the Nietzschean notion that the Christian idea of divine love (agape) is a real buzz-kill for the racier impulses of passionate love (eros). The Pope acknowledges this widespread perception by asking sympathetically: isn’t it the case that the Church always seems to be “blowing the whistle” on our fun just as we are starting to enjoy the Creator’s gifts?

Benedict’s answer is intriguing. Rather than being the opposite of eros, agape is its completion, for indeed, every erotic impulse, no matter how profane, is a groping for the divine, a desire not for possession but for self-giving and self-abandonment. And conversely, agape is not a prissy negation of carnal longing but, in a certain way, the highest kind of eros. It is no coincidence that the Song of Solomon describes the mystical union of God and His people in the highly erotic language of a lover and his beloved.

Why does any of this matter? Well, for a couple of reasons. First, regardless of whether one is Catholic or not, any thoughtful refutation of Nietzsche is to be welcomed. Nietzsche took aim not at Catholicism but at the entirety of Judeo-Christian morality, which he viewed as filled with passive aggression and ressentiment. His pioneering move “beyond good and evil” led to the further dismantling of biblical morality and to the rise of the death camps, the gulags, and all the other totalitarian niceties of the twentieth century that went into making it the bloodiest century in world history. Nietzsche was actually a first-rate critic of modernity, but his hatred of Western religion could not have been more disastrous on Western civilization. His [false] accusation that Judaism and Christianity are hostile to the body would be picked up by Freud, popularized by Kinsey, and cemented into the culture by 1960s radicalism and the ascendancy of the New Left. Call it the rising tide that sunk all boats, secular as well as religious.

Second, the Pope’s argument that divine love elevates rather than dampens or discourages eros is one that strikes me as going straight to the heart of modesty’s hidden power and value. Isn’t it the bridling or veiling of eros by the higher loves of virtue, self-respect, and so on that actually gives eros a greater strength and verve? Doesn’t modesty reflect a great paradox, that the proper exercise of restraint does not destroy desire but heightens and purifies it? Or to put it a little more bluntly, aren’t modest people not only the most beautiful, inside and out, but in some respects the sexiest as well? (Not that that is the primary motive for being modest, but it can be a nice fringe benefit!) As Wendy Shalit has pointed out many times, modesty and prudery are anything but synonymous. And it would seem that the Supreme Pontiff could not agree with her more.

I think a sexual attraction is a requirement in the beginning of a romantic relationship, whereas it is less necessary (though we all hope it doesn't fade) the longer you are together.

Does romantic love require a sexual attraction?