Flutterby™! : Eros and Agape 2004-02-09 18:28:21.419916+00

Eros and Agape

2004-02-09 18:28:21.419916+00 by Dan Lyke 9 comments

A Financial Times blurb on the upcoming The Good Old Naughty Days, "a collection of naughty shorts from France in the 1920s". Sounds interesting because it appears to lend credence to my story that we don't actually make any social progress, we're simply permissive and restrictive in cycles. Peter Aspden points out some of the conflicts between culture, art and eros:

It is an unsettling paradox that arguably the most powerful human urge, to revel in sexual pleasure, should bear no or little relation to arguably the second most powerful urge, to express ourselves freely. If contemporary folklore is to be believed, what most of us seek more than anything is a regular, passionate sexual relationship with one person whom we love in a number of other ways: Eros and Agape happily unified for convenience and, it would seem, everlasting contentment.

Yet art deals with this unexceptional desire in a diffident, almost contemptuous way....

Perhaps its a question of age, or at least the mental age of the artist. I agree with the FT author that depictions of wedded eroticism are few and far between. But what young person looks beyond the genital expression? After a while the purely physical expression can get stale. We grow up, and if we're lucky find a relationship that includes other elements, such as conpanionship or shared familial duty, with the erotic drive. I would find a 20 year-old looking for a life companion a little creepy, but I find 45 year-olds thinking only of their next hump to be ridiculous.

My parents were married for more than 55 years, and I find the complexities and intricacies of that relationship extraordinarily interesting. The elements of my own 27-year marriage are fascinating. It would be interesting to see amovie about that.

Why so? I can't say I thought it was creepy, but it sure was difficult to be that way. All my life, potential dates were evaluated by whether or not they might make for good long-term relationships. Of course, some argue that's why I didn't have many...

As for Aspden, I don't think he's making much sense. What I'm getting out of his piece is that he's claiming "sexual pleasure" must be monogamy, within the bounds defined by intimacy, etc. Everything else is strictly for shock value.

I don't buy it. That's the same line (in sheep's clothing) the Restrictive's have been giving us for years.

His line that "We are still in thrall to the idea of sex being naughty." seems particularly naive, but I was set up for that particular brand of ignorance higher up in the piece, where he claims that:

My grandfather once said "Kids these days think they invented sex. They're wrong. We did." Aspden seems to be saying this with a straight face, ignoring millenia of art illustrating similar acts preceding the imagery that he finds so shocking. It's important to remember that the term "free love" was merely an echo in the 1970s of the 1870s.

But I think he does have one point: Why isn't there more erotic art drawing on the strengths of relationships? Is it that the strength of years is difficult to show? There are certainly examples of such work out there (some of David Steinberg

's photography comes to mind), but that's not the majority.

Sex != Naughty - Dang religious teachings. Once you get over the 'forbidden fruit' aspects, you can pay attention to what is really going on. Eros and Agape are certainly aspects, but Eros changes when you can evaluate it for itself... and not just 'Oh my goshen I saw her titty!' In dating some very fundemental women, it's a real issue, they get off just being "naughty" and honestly have no skill, no stimulus and response, no sensuality beyond being naughty. "Does it feel good/make you feel good" does not come into play compared to just 'breaking the rules. Throw away the rules, have fun for it's own sake, delve into sharing, trusting, feeling.. and at the right moment, the raw instinctive animal act of lust, passion and intense pleasure.

I think that, there has always been people with a healthy natuaral attitude towards sexuality, and it just comes into vogue in cycles. Anyone here remember what the scene was like 'Pre-HIV'? We are now 'survivors'.. and major public figures are surviving HIV, it's no longer the paranoid panic level issue.. so the healthy attitude has become more public. Again. And every time it becomes more public, some 'paid by the word' writer starts claiming that 'this is the age of enlightenment'. And the cycle starts all over again.

Yes, that is from some very specific experiences.. enough I'd call it a scientific sampling..

I believe it is because the prevailing attitude is exactly that which Aspden demonstrates: that naughty can't go hand in hand with stable relationships. Happily committed persons [read: couples] aren't supposed to be erotic, kinky or slutty. Even if such people do exist, we shouldn't admit it openly. Oh, no.

We can even see vestiges of that social conditioning here on Flutterby, in this very thread.

For myself, I find equal value in the pleasure of the act and thumbing my nose at "the rules". Passion is what drives my sexuality, my philosophy, my work, my life. Why is that wrong (or misplaced, or whatever)?

#Comment Re: made: 2004-02-11 19:40:32.061792+00 by: Pete [edit history]

As for dependence, sexual pleasure is a part of life, and life is dependent upon a great many things. We don't live in a vacuum. We live in an elaborate web of interdependencies. I don't see this as being any different than being dependent upon [the authority of] ski resorts for the pleasure of skiing.