This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm and is filed under Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It is evident, then, that there must be something else which determines the mode of sexual behavior. Can it be that we, ourselves, choose the form of our own sexual expression? And does this choice reflect our use of sex for a definite purpose? The following case may help answer this question:
Mrs. D., age 54, complained that her husband, who was over 60 years old, was altogether too passionate. While her sexual desires had decreased considerably, Mr. D. approached her almost nightly-even more frequently then he used to. He maintained he could not control his urge and that it was her duty to satisfy it.
Mrs. D. was advised not only to accede to her husband’s demands but to appear even more passionate than he and to make even further demands upon him sexually. She accepted this advice, but not without some doubt. She later reported that her change in behavior had completely astonished her husband. At first he didn’t know what to do about it. Then, the more she demanded, the more he retreated. Finally he became impotent.
It will be readily seen that in this case we are dealing not alone with the sexual drive. Otherwise, the wife’s treatment of her husband would not have resulted in his impotence. Actually the couple was engaged in a competition for dominance, and the husband was using his sexual capacity in his fight for his “rights.” The basic marital problem was not sexual and therefore was not solved by the strategy outlined above. But the case affords an example of how sexuality may be used. We choose the mode of sexual expression in accordance with the way it serves our fundamental goals.
If we accept this thesis, how can we explain the fact that we don’t see the purpose in our own sexual behavior? Can it be that we merely seem to be passive victims of our drives and our emotions because we don’t want to admit responsibility for our behavior? As long as our basic intentions conform with our conscience, we accept full responsibility for our actions. But occasionally we can’t reconcile intentions with conscience. It is here that we refuse to acknowledge our intentions and resort to the use of emotions to justify our actions. The following case may help illustrate this point:
John B. was deeply “in love.” So great was his passion for Alice that he could think of nothing else. Unfortunately, she didn’t respond, and she rejected his proposal. But John was the sort of fellow who always got what he wanted. So he pursued her and pleaded his cause persistently. The girl remained obdurate. Then John became desperate and threatened suicide. At this point she weakened, for did this not prove how much he loved her? So she married him.
Now John lost his interest in Alice and neglected her, even sexually. When she complained tearfully that he didn’t love her any more, he told her he couldn’t help it, for he was no longer in love! Then she divorced him.
Whereupon John “fell in love” with Alice again. He could not live without her. Now he was really in love with her. And he again pursued her but with even greater urgency than before. To escape him, she married someone else.
Now John was really challenged. He was again determined to have Alice for his wife. So he began to threaten the life of her second husband. To protect the latter from John’s threats, Alice divorced him. The tempo of John’s pursuit now accelerated. He convinced her that his divorce had taught him a lesson, that he needed her, that he was a “changed man,” and that his love was now both profound and eternal. So she remarried him.
As one may suspect, it was not long before John again began to neglect his wife. And, of course, it was not his fault. For somehow or other he was again out of love.
It is now apparent that our hero was concerned not with the establishment of a satisfying state of being in love, but rather with proving that he could cause a woman to fall in love with him whenever he might choose. Once this was accomplished, he was no longer interested in her until his possession of her was again challenged. It was not love, but his desire to put a woman into his service that motivated him. How convenient it was to attribute this fluctuation in his interest to the notorious un dependability of the emotion of love!
We come now to the discussion of the emotion-complex we call love. Can we show that we ourselves determine the direction, and even the very existence of love? Do we use love as we use sex to serve our fundamental purposes?
