The Space Between Love and Choice
My friend is reeling from a break-up. Maybe "reeling" is too strong ... he's adjusting. He was on the receiving end of the break-up, and I can tell that in some ways, he thinks it's for the best. But I sense sadness, a sense of loss. A couple of us met him at a bar that we like, and the three of us talked about women, what they expect of us, what we expect of them.
The conversation was another variation of a constant theme, one that changes ever so gradually, almost imperceptibly, as we age. The vocabulary and the situations have changed since high school, but I think the essence of the conversations was the same. Our words focused on meaningful companionship with a woman. We wondered aloud: How does one achieve it? How can one sustain it? What does one do when he loses it?
Our answers varied depending on our religious/philosophical beliefs. My friend is a deist. He believes that marriage is a practical matter; it provides a safe, consistent environment for children, and allows individuals to pool resources. In his eyes, it's an institution that's good for society, and love has very little to do with it. He said, "True love never lasts anyway. It can't."
This made me think of a couple of chapters in The Road Less Travelled, by M. Scott Peck. I mentioned the book, and asked if he'd read it. He said, "That book was my father's bible. I've read that shit about ten times. So yes ... we're discussing the difference between love and cathexis. I'm saying cathexis does not last." I said I wasn't so sure. I described another friend's grandparents. They got married as young people, had six children together (lost one in infancy), and seemed truly, truly happy fifty years later. They weren't just companions; they were into each other.
My friend explained that things were different back then, and that they had probably lost their virginity to each other, thus prolonging the cathexis. He seemed to be implying that people who have had more than one partner cannot enjoy that sort of sustained romantic happiness.
I don't really believe that. At least I don't think I do. I see what he's saying, though. The feeling of being "in love" does seem sort of evanescent. A number of evangelical writers talk about love being "a choice" or "a commitment". They keep singing the same refrain again and again: "Marriage is hard work. It's tough!" Yes, that seems to be true. But I find the whole "love is a choice" argument to be lacking. It seems almost ... trite. It's as if they believe humans have two mutually exclusive options in terms of sexual relationships: a) be madly in love (and rest assured that it won't last for long); b) choose to be committed despite lots of hard times to come. It's as if they believe that lucky married people start off with the first, and prudently understand that it won't last; they get to have some joy before they have to roll up their sleeves and get down to hard work for the rest of their lives. What about the unlucky married folks? Well, they knew what they were getting into, and didn't miss out on much because, hey ... being in love only lasts a little while.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I can't explain it though. My guess is that the space that's left after the feelings of being in love disintegrate should be filled with ... I don't know if there's a word for it in English. A deep and abiding friendship that propels/demands intimacy. It's that "thing" that makes a man think "I don't understand her, and she's a real pain in the ass sometimes, but ... I sure hate it when she isn't around." It's a feeling, a force, a phenomenon that makes a man want to be ... better, but not just for her. He wants to be better for himself; her being around just sheds more light on the subject, and puts things in perspective. This "thing" or phenomenon or whatever it is, that fills the space between "being in love" and consigning oneself to determined commitment, seems to be an unlikely blend of trust, respect, admiration, and physical attraction (not an exhaustive list).
It seems to manifest itself differently in men and women, but of course, that's a generalization. From what I can tell, it's very elusive at times, and tends to pop up when least expected, thriving among individuals who have healthy souls and minds. Who can understand it, much less explain it?
The conversation was another variation of a constant theme, one that changes ever so gradually, almost imperceptibly, as we age. The vocabulary and the situations have changed since high school, but I think the essence of the conversations was the same. Our words focused on meaningful companionship with a woman. We wondered aloud: How does one achieve it? How can one sustain it? What does one do when he loses it?
Our answers varied depending on our religious/philosophical beliefs. My friend is a deist. He believes that marriage is a practical matter; it provides a safe, consistent environment for children, and allows individuals to pool resources. In his eyes, it's an institution that's good for society, and love has very little to do with it. He said, "True love never lasts anyway. It can't."
This made me think of a couple of chapters in The Road Less Travelled, by M. Scott Peck. I mentioned the book, and asked if he'd read it. He said, "That book was my father's bible. I've read that shit about ten times. So yes ... we're discussing the difference between love and cathexis. I'm saying cathexis does not last." I said I wasn't so sure. I described another friend's grandparents. They got married as young people, had six children together (lost one in infancy), and seemed truly, truly happy fifty years later. They weren't just companions; they were into each other.
My friend explained that things were different back then, and that they had probably lost their virginity to each other, thus prolonging the cathexis. He seemed to be implying that people who have had more than one partner cannot enjoy that sort of sustained romantic happiness.
I don't really believe that. At least I don't think I do. I see what he's saying, though. The feeling of being "in love" does seem sort of evanescent. A number of evangelical writers talk about love being "a choice" or "a commitment". They keep singing the same refrain again and again: "Marriage is hard work. It's tough!" Yes, that seems to be true. But I find the whole "love is a choice" argument to be lacking. It seems almost ... trite. It's as if they believe humans have two mutually exclusive options in terms of sexual relationships: a) be madly in love (and rest assured that it won't last for long); b) choose to be committed despite lots of hard times to come. It's as if they believe that lucky married people start off with the first, and prudently understand that it won't last; they get to have some joy before they have to roll up their sleeves and get down to hard work for the rest of their lives. What about the unlucky married folks? Well, they knew what they were getting into, and didn't miss out on much because, hey ... being in love only lasts a little while.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that. I can't explain it though. My guess is that the space that's left after the feelings of being in love disintegrate should be filled with ... I don't know if there's a word for it in English. A deep and abiding friendship that propels/demands intimacy. It's that "thing" that makes a man think "I don't understand her, and she's a real pain in the ass sometimes, but ... I sure hate it when she isn't around." It's a feeling, a force, a phenomenon that makes a man want to be ... better, but not just for her. He wants to be better for himself; her being around just sheds more light on the subject, and puts things in perspective. This "thing" or phenomenon or whatever it is, that fills the space between "being in love" and consigning oneself to determined commitment, seems to be an unlikely blend of trust, respect, admiration, and physical attraction (not an exhaustive list).
It seems to manifest itself differently in men and women, but of course, that's a generalization. From what I can tell, it's very elusive at times, and tends to pop up when least expected, thriving among individuals who have healthy souls and minds. Who can understand it, much less explain it?
posted by Wordsmyth at
7:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home