The liturgical chants and battle-cries accompanying and bemoaning the war on women are true in an erotic context.Now, maybe I'm just a stodgy old married guy, but I don't actually think that slavery is a very good analogy for love. But let's leave that aside for a moment and accept the standard poetic conceit. Here's the problem: There's a big difference between offering yourself as a slave to someone and wanting them to do the same to you, and wanting to enslave someone. It's the difference between gift and domination. A relationship could work well in which each person wishes to serve the other's every desire: in which, according to the chosen metaphor, each person is a slave to the other. But that only works if they both want to be the slave. If, in any relationship, one or both members want to be the master while the other is the slave, you have a recipe for strife and unhappiness in abundance, not to mention a fair amount of cruelty.
The man who loves does wish to “control a woman’s body,” with an ardor rivaled only by his desire for the beloved to control his own. For what on earth is the sexual act, if not an attempt to control the body of the beloved? This is obvious in the physical sense, as the lover tries to “control” the other’s body into experiencing ecstasy, but it is also true when considering the nature of sex itself: If sex is the ultimate physical expression of erotic love, and love is desiring the good of the beloved, than sex — in its fullest — is the physical attempt to bring the beloved to his or her ultimate good, and thus an obvious attempt to control.
Similarly, the lover does desire a “slavery for women,” and for one woman in particular, a desire overwhelmed only by his desire to be enslaved by her.
This, really, is the problem with the metaphor. It's all very well for the poet to say, "I want to be your slave," but if his beloved takes him up on the offer by behaving like a slave owner, the poet is going to be dreadfully unhappy. (Which, come to that, brings us to another whole genre of often tiresome poetry.) Even if we accept the metaphor of wanting to be a slave to the beloved, a loving relationship is one in which each wants to be a slave to the other, but neither wants to enslave the other. Being a slave is not the same as enslaving, it's the opposite.
The same problem comes with the attempt to turn "control a woman's body" into a positive. Sex in which both man and woman strive to control each other's bodies is not going to work out well. In seeking to "control" one seeks to make the other do what one wants. If we assume that the lover wants his beloved to get what she wants (say, sexual release) one might assume this would work out to the same thing. But in actual interactions between people "I want to make you do what you want" is very different from "I want to give you what you want".
The inversion and capture method of apologetics is appealing in its cleverness, but the fact is that there are a lot of expressions that you really won't want to capture and make your own, indeed that you can't make your own without expressing your beliefs as something rather distasteful. In this case, terms like "control a woman's body", "enslave women" and "war on women" are not terms that Christians should seek to adopt and turn to positive meaning. It doesn't come off as some clever turn of phrase that makes one appreciate Christian love and a Christian understanding of sexuality in a new light. It just comes off as too clever by half and makes Christian morality sound vaguely nasty.
8 comments:
Agreed. That post didn't sit well with me at all. I understand what he's trying to do; but it doesn't work.
I'll give Marc credit for going out on a limb quite a lot with novel analogies, and then walking them back when he gets pushback in the comments. It's a brave way to test the writer's craft.
I don't know, this just seems like twee cleverness without any real engagement with reality.
I was especially ticked off by the "love is not consensual" thing. Uhh, we use the idea of consensuality to things people do with and to each other. As far as falling in love is unwilled, it is an internal and one-sided experience, and the idea of consensuality makes no sense. It's like talking about a non-consensual flu.
There are people working really, really hard to make sure mass culture internalizes a clear and applicable understanding of consensuality, because women's lives and safety are at stake. But he probably didn't think of these people and how he was undermining them when he decided to play nonsensical games with the word.
Even young writers (I say this as one of them, who makes her fair share of mistakes) testing their craft have a responsibility to think, please just stop and think, about what they are saying--what it means, not just how it sounds.
"For what on earth is the sexual act, if not an attempt to control the body of the beloved? This is obvious in the physical sense, as the lover tries to “control” the other’s body into experiencing ecstasy, but it is also true when considering the nature of sex itself: If sex is the ultimate physical expression of erotic love, and love is desiring the good of the beloved, than sex — in its fullest — is the physical attempt to bring the beloved to his or her ultimate good, and thus an obvious attempt to control."
I don't think his conclusion follows from his premises, as attempting to bring the beloved to his or her ultimate good (in itself a troublesome formulation) and attempting to control are not remotely the same thing, in theory or in practice.
This definitely does seem to have been a bad move all around. While it's far from the worst problem with this, the thing that strikes me immediately about this kind of reasoning is that it gets even the poetic conceit wrong: the whole point of it is that it is a figurative way of speaking. All those poems using the slave metaphor depend crucially on the fact that actual slavery is far, far from view: only then can the hyperbole and metaphor have any point. If your approach to love poetry is to read it all as literal description, it misses the whole point and kills all the poetry. (One wonders how it would work with other things. "Of course men want to be murdered by women; being killed by the beloved is one of the most universal metaphors in the genre! What lover doesn't sometimes use it!" "Of course when you love someone you want to eat their flesh like a cannibal! Italians like Dante wrote whole poems about it!") There's a big difference between 'often feels like' and 'is'. Dante himself already pointed out the problem: precisely what puts Paolo and Francesca in hell is that they were taking love poetry as a literal model rather than striving for virtue.
+JMJ+
Brandon's comment has reminded me that Italy has produced some of the best zombie Horror ever filmed. (Darwins, you know I'm not trolling you when I say that.)
It's not that surprising, really. There are plenty of young Catholic men who honestly, genuinely believe that they are going to have all the control in marriage, and it will be for the "good" of the wife. They usually qualify this by saying, "Not in a tyrannical way, of course" but they are still talking about having some sort of "loving control." They just don't usually talk about sex when they're invoking this idea.
"For what on earth is the sexual act, if not an attempt to control the body of the beloved? This is obvious in the physical sense, as the lover tries to “control” the other’s body into experiencing ecstasy..."
Why does this strike me as being just terribly naive about the physics of sex? Aside from the imagery it conjures, of play-dough phalluses, or someone just really working up a single-minded sweat in the sack, climax (at least the ones I've had) never have to do with having been "controlled" and cajoled into it. Ouch.
Post a Comment