(no subject)
fragments: love - is it too cynical to suggest a derivative procreation/sexual pleasure function to "romantic" relationships? remove either motivation from the equation and what remains? oh, yeah, i missed esteem - we do require this revered other to make us feel "whole", don't we?
is not all this chatter of "falling in love" merely a point of reconciliation? a moment where we decide to - perhaps unconciously - forgive the gross follies of this "better half" in the name of - you guessed it: procreation, sexual pleasure, and the esteem accorded to one in "union".
this must be all too bleak to account for the full repertoire of affect produced in union - or is it? how coolly pragmatic it all really is. love, of course, is just another transcendental signified, but in no mysterious, esoteric way - it doesn't exist. why must we mask the mechanical functionalism in "relationships" with...you name it, you've done it - and justified it too.
still, after all this time, the binary of spirit and flesh presides over this discussion - with the privileging of the prior, the immaterial. let us invent romantically pious games for ourselves, convincing ourselves that a justification has been made for those lowly carnalistic double-time thrusts of the hips (for example, that is - it's not the only way to do it). it's not after all, just about sex...i mean, i love you (?) i forgive you your follies - in fact, i'm blind to them.
what we might traditionally categorize as a "relationship" in the romantic sense is little more than a slavehouse for romantic love. well, "guardian" if we want to be euphemistic.
- too structuralist there, gil? a bit too general...
- well, are you sure you're not justifying by extravagant means something rather petty?
i asked a gentleman the other day, "when's the last time you felt self-affirmed?", to which he responded, "the day me and _________ got together." ouch.
of course two people can love each other, and be at least semi-sincere upon closer analysis. of course two people can blind themselves to one another, we see it everyday. of course two people can sacrifice all of themselves in self-affirmation and not see the contradiction.
- it's easy for someone single to be cynical like you, gil.
- it's hard for someone in a relationship to be honest with all this, _______.
- phuck you.
- and i'm hardly a cynic, i think u're the cynic - the one who revolted against the self because he loathed himself too much - and found a partner.
the socially constructed ideal of romantic relationships actually can exist - just not with you, nor you...and probably not you.
ok fine, u're really in love - which i never disputed by the way - and your relationship is not a sham (but it is).
is not all this chatter of "falling in love" merely a point of reconciliation? a moment where we decide to - perhaps unconciously - forgive the gross follies of this "better half" in the name of - you guessed it: procreation, sexual pleasure, and the esteem accorded to one in "union".
this must be all too bleak to account for the full repertoire of affect produced in union - or is it? how coolly pragmatic it all really is. love, of course, is just another transcendental signified, but in no mysterious, esoteric way - it doesn't exist. why must we mask the mechanical functionalism in "relationships" with...you name it, you've done it - and justified it too.
still, after all this time, the binary of spirit and flesh presides over this discussion - with the privileging of the prior, the immaterial. let us invent romantically pious games for ourselves, convincing ourselves that a justification has been made for those lowly carnalistic double-time thrusts of the hips (for example, that is - it's not the only way to do it). it's not after all, just about sex...i mean, i love you (?) i forgive you your follies - in fact, i'm blind to them.
what we might traditionally categorize as a "relationship" in the romantic sense is little more than a slavehouse for romantic love. well, "guardian" if we want to be euphemistic.
- too structuralist there, gil? a bit too general...
- well, are you sure you're not justifying by extravagant means something rather petty?
i asked a gentleman the other day, "when's the last time you felt self-affirmed?", to which he responded, "the day me and _________ got together." ouch.
of course two people can love each other, and be at least semi-sincere upon closer analysis. of course two people can blind themselves to one another, we see it everyday. of course two people can sacrifice all of themselves in self-affirmation and not see the contradiction.
- it's easy for someone single to be cynical like you, gil.
- it's hard for someone in a relationship to be honest with all this, _______.
- phuck you.
- and i'm hardly a cynic, i think u're the cynic - the one who revolted against the self because he loathed himself too much - and found a partner.
the socially constructed ideal of romantic relationships actually can exist - just not with you, nor you...and probably not you.
ok fine, u're really in love - which i never disputed by the way - and your relationship is not a sham (but it is).