Is attraction enough?

FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Once, I sipped a water in a cruise ship bar and made eyes with a cruise ship drummer.

A good looking cruise ship drummer.

Who wasn’t wearing a wedding band.

Whose eyes’ contact with mine resulted in warm and fuzzy feelings.

This, I think, is the coveted “love” at first sight (which, to clarify, isn’t actually love).

It is instantaneous, inexplicable attraction. It is why when I met the cruise ship drummer after his set, I didn’t care that he hardly could speak English. It is why I wasn’t embarrassed by my embarrassing opener: “I don’t speak Spanish.” Not much matters except for attraction when we think the existence of attraction is enough.

But attraction alone doesn’t matter much. It is neither warm feelings nor fuzzy ones that deem the pursuit of a relationship necessarily advisable. Which is why I am mildly alarmed by the frequency with which relationships are pursued based solely on warm and fuzzy feelings.

This is when we are self-focused daters. When we want what we want because it feels good, not because it is good. When we date someone because we are attracted to him or her.

This is not to say we should date people to whom we are not attracted. (Awkward!) It is to say that attraction is not enough (especially if it’s inexplicable).

It is never enough.

The outcomes of self-focused dating vary. Maybe you get lucky and wind up with somebody good. Maybe you fight to sustain or revive an irrational relationship. Maybe you marry a person who, outside the attraction, you don’t even like.

But I can’t even tell you how much this hurts my heart.

My hunch is, in a culture as distracted as ours, most of us are satisfied when looking at, being near, talking to, or sleeping with him or her feels good.

Which is why few people probably stop to consider the magnitude of the self-focused pursuit and maintenance of relationships; to consider what it means that we are more concerned with how good somebody makes us feel than with whether he or she is mature enough to be a spouse.

Than with whether we become better or worse people by being with each other.

Than with whether he or she would be a good parent.

Than with whether we are being fair to our future kids when our future kids will grow up and turn into one of us.

My attraction to you and yours to me doesn’t render us prepared to be spouses or parents. My attraction to you and yours to me is necessary but insufficient for a functional relationship.

“But it feels good.”

But “it feels good” isn’t enough.

[Love and Responsibility] Part 1: Libido and the sexual urge.

This post is part 1 in a sex and love series based on what I learned from my favorite parts of the brilliant book Love and Responsibility by Blessed Pope John Paul II. All quotes, unless otherwise noted or used for emphasis, come from the book.

– – – –

In a chapter on the sexual urge, Pope John Paul II brilliantly differentiates the ‘libidinistic’ interpretation of the sexual urge (as popularized by Freud) from the ‘religious’ one.

The ‘libidinistic’ interpretation says the sexual urge is “fundamentally an urge to enjoy” whereas the ‘religious’ interpretation says the sexual urge is designed to “orient us toward another person,” according to Edward Sri. True orientation toward the beloved curbs a person’s urge to use somebody.

“Libidinistic” is a derivative of the Latin word libido, which means “enjoyment resulting from use.”

Freud’s version of the sexual urge is incompatible with life as Christ calls us to live it, for at least three reasons:

1. It’s a bummer for babies. A sexual urge based on libido requires acquiring pleasure to be the primary purpose of the urge. If acquiring pleasure is the primary purpose of the urge, “the transmission of life,” more commonly called makin’ babies, is simply a side effect. Which means orientation toward another person – be it the one with whom you’re having sex or the one you co-create while you do it – isn’t necessary.

2. It means humans are really just animals. A sexual urge based on libido requires little else of a person than sensitization to “enjoyable sensory stimuli of a sexual nature.” It encourages us to immerse ourselves in “enjoyment resulting from use” every time the opportunity to “use” arises. Then it convinces us that we have to. The result? We are governed by our urges (sort of like my dog is).

3. It masquerades as justification for contraception and abortion. If procreation is only a side effect of acting on the sexual urge (as it is when the urge is based on libido), abstinence is illogical. So when “the earth is threatened with overpopulation” but making babies isn’t a primary purpose of sex (as it isn’t when the urge is based on libido), “have less sex” makes less sense than “suppress fertility.” In other words, even when good reasons exist not to have babies (including but not limited to “I’m not ready to be a parent.”), people for whom the sexual urge is based on libido can’t conclude what JP2 concludes: “We ought to aim at limiting the use of the sexual urge.” Instead, they “aim at the preservation in full of … the pleasure of sexual intercourse, while at the same time curbing … procreation.”

My hunch is we who agree with JP2 on this are few and far between.

(But Jesus wasn’t kidding when he called it a narrow road.)

Love is tough.

I sat in my seat in a circle of students in my counseling theories class.

Pen in hand and a self-inventory worksheet on top of a book in my lap, I thought about the question at the top of the paper: 
What did you learn about love from how your parents treated you?
This is what I wrote:

Love requires trust (in multiple ways). Trustworthiness was expected of me, not as a condition of love but as a function of it. Love is tough. When I am loved, I am held to high standards, expected to be the best I can and not enabled to do whatever is less than my best.

I think of this a lot.

I think of it as a counselor (Ha! It’s still so new to call myself that.), in my observation of families and in my interactions with clients.

But also as a daughter. A sister. A friend. A single woman. A potential wife and parent.

This is not about one person telling another what he or she has to change about him or herself in order to be marriage material (I did that once, and it isn’t love).

This is not about manipulating a person into being who they aren’t, who you’d like them to be (somebody tried to do that to me once, and it isn’t love, either).

It is not about having unreasonable expectations (sort of like when my goal was to find – nay, be found by – a Catholic chiropractor who has dreadlocks and a Scottish accent).

It is not about relating like an authoritarian.

This is about ti voglio bene. Italian for “I love you,” but translated literally – according to Edward Sri in Men, Women and the Mystery of Love – it is “I wish you good” or “I want what is good for you.”

This is really about sacrifice.

It’s about not putting yourself between your kid and reasonable consequences for his or her behavior (because while you suffer when they do, if you always save them, they never can learn). It’s about not spoiling your kid, even if it makes you sad when your kid doesn’t get what he or she wants, or your kid’s response to “no” irritates the snot out of you (because kids who are given everything become adults who don’t want to do anything).

It’s about expecting the beloved to reach the bar (of integrity, responsibility, chastity, etc.), not lowering it for them. It’s about accepting that to lower the bar for somebody – while easy for you – is to contribute to the maintenance of his or her weakness, to the atrophy of his or her muscles.

It’s about being there for the beloved through his or her growing pains (which implies allowing him or her to grow), not vetoing somebody’s growth so you don’t have to witness his or her pain.

Love is tough.

Ti voglio bene.

[Guest Post] Why my husband and I don’t use contraception.

Guest blogger Stephanie!

I bet not everyone gets to learn about contraception with the help of a Slip N’ Slide. Seriously. Born and raised Catholic, I learned somewhere along the way that the Church never permits artificial forms of birth control, but until I attended this particular gathering of my high school youth group, the one involving said slide, I’d thought birth control was one of those things, like Crocs and the Backstreet Boys, that wasn’t really taken seriously anymore.

I’ve discovered, as it turns out, that birth control totally is serious business. Love, I was told that night, is meant to be free, faithful, total, and fruitful (the slide was supposed to represent this, I think). It’s meant to be given without reserve, promised and sealed in fidelity, to hold back nothing, and to invite a man and woman to become creators of new life. It all made a lot of sense, especially when I discovered that the Catholic Church didn’t insist that every sexual act produce a baby.

So yes; my Catholic faith tells me that contraception is always inherently wrong. If you told me that it’s foolish to follow a bunch of rules just because the Catholic Church tells you to, I’d say you’re absolutely right. The amazing thing about the Church, I’ve learned, is that every time I’ve put a question of teaching to the test, there’s been a perfectly clear, logical answer that emphasizes one’s best good. Rules don’t exist to burden us (there’s a reason why you stop at a red light, for instance, or why your iPod manual tells you not to take your iPod swimming), but to let us live in the most fulfilling way.

The thing is, I don’t want to lead with my religion. I want to lead with who I am. My understanding has since deepened beyond a teenager’s somewhat blind obedience to her faith. The more I learned, the more convinced I became that birth control is one of the greatest inhibitors of romance, intimacy, and true freedom. I’ve come to see that biologically, practically, logically, and even romantically speaking, choosing not to bring contraceptives into a relationship is one of the absolute best ways to foster trust, honest communication, and authentic love. Who doesn’t long for that?

In the past few years, various friends and personal reading have led me to become a huge advocate for what I like to call the crunchy life. You know: coconut oil, kale, homemade cleaning products, and natural deodorant. I know I’m not the only one — in my observation, the benefits of things like green juice, organic meats, and neti pots are becoming commonplace on the pages of many women’s magazines.

It’s a puzzle to me, then, that with all the justified concerns we have about our well-being and environmental impact, so many of us seem to overlook a critical area of our lives: our reproductive health. Biologically, the birth control Pill and other hormonal contraceptives work by releasing large amounts of synthetic hormones, estrogen and progestin, that suppress ovulation and mimic the hormonal symptoms of pregnancy. In other words, they fool a woman’s body into a sort of state of constant pregnancy.

This, to me, couldn’t be further from natural. Consider, for instance, the fact that it’s normal to take medicine when you have a headache. It’s not normal when you don’t have a headache. In the same way, the Pill is marketed to “treat” a condition that doesn’t exist: it’s intended to actually prevent a woman’s body from functioning as it naturally does.

What’s more, the information packet for the Pill contains an extensive list of side effects that are directly related to taking it, ranging from weight gain, acne, migraines, and high blood pressure all the way to heart attack and increased chances of breast and cervical cancer. Ironically enough, the Pill often lowers a woman’s sex drive, the very thing she sought to liberate, as well. While packets are quick to point out that the Pill is merely “associated with” higher instances of serious conditions, and that they are rare, I still personally don’t find that the freedom to enjoy sex without pregnancy outweighs these risks.

I’m angered when I see how readily the Pill is pushed on women, largely in the name of profit. Friends have described taking birth control to me as feeling trapped in one’s own body, not feeling at all like oneself, and living in fear of what might happen to one’s complexion, weight, and future children, if one ceased to take it (you can read more anecdotal testaments here). We deserve so much more. The health-related shortcomings of birth control speak for themselves, but I think the logical case against contraception is just as convincing.

Free, faithful, total, and fruitful. It seems that even to a nonreligious individual, these four elements of love and sex are, at some point in a relationship, very desirable. I think most would agree that the body speaks a language, and that sex and love speak the same thing, whether one intends them to or not. They say, I want you, and all of you, forever. Isn’t that what we’re all longing to hear?

If one of these elements is missing, the body essentially speaks a lie. I want you, it says, but not all of you. It’s a conditional promise. When the fruitful aspect of sex is artificially eliminated, there’s a withholding of one’s fertility and the accompanying responsibility it bears.

That exact sense of unconditional love and responsibility is my biggest reason of all not to contracept. I met my husband Andrew four years ago, and when we became a couple, it didn’t take long for either of us to know we’d never go on another first date. Not only was he a handsome lover of words who’d hide notes around my apartment, he shared my take on birth control. During our engagement, we signed up for Natural Family Planning (NFP) courses to prepare for a contraceptive-free marriage.

Choosing to forego birth control in our marriage comes down to love. Karol Wojtyla, the man who became Pope John Paul II, wrote that the opposite of love is not hatred, but using another person. One need only look to the culture, I think, to see that hookups, friends with benefits, and cohabitation have left so many of us broken. We’re promised freedom, but are left instead with deep wounds. No one’s body or heart is meant to be used only for what it can offer sexually; it’s meant for love that sacrifices and heals.

Each of us is so much more than just a body, but in our humanness that can be easy to forget. Even in a loving marriage, there exists the possibility of desiring one’s spouse for self-gratifying purposes, rather than a desire to express love for the other. It’s a daily battle to let love prevail over lust.

I want my husband and I to have the best possible chances of winning–when birth control takes pregnancy off the table, I can only foresee a greater temptation to use one’s spouse, even unintentionally, to take sex for granted. Birth control, I think, could easily become a crutch to mask a lack of self-control for one another’s sake.

In our attempts to not take sex for granted, we’ve found NFP a powerful way to understand sex as good and beautiful without idolizing it. A far cry from the rhythm or calendar methods of old, NFP is a scientifically precise, observation-based method of simply tracking, rather than altering, the existing conditions of a woman’s body in order to determine periods of fertility and infertility throughout her cycle. When used correctly, NFP is as effective at postponing pregnancy as the Pill.

I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t hard not to giggle, at first, when we learned that cervical mucus was one of the observable signs of fertility. We discovered that planning to use NFP in the abstract and actually sitting in a classroom learning it, trying to pretend a couple wasn’t standing there talking about ovulation the way most people talk about the weather, are two completely different things. You get used to it.

It’s actually something I’m so thankful for–I’d venture that, between texting my husband about my mucus while I’m at work, filling in my chart together each night, and constantly discerning a prudent time to begin a family, we have a more goofy, more intimate, and more joyful sex life than we ever could with contraception. The responsibility of planning our family doesn’t just fall to me as I take a daily pill or replace a monthly patch; it’s shared by the both of us. The self-control required to abstain during times of fertility sets us free to truly give ourselves to one another.

Intimacy isn’t a right to be demanded. It’s the fruit of loving, willful submission. Sexual freedom, we’ve seen, doesn’t mean a total lack of responsibility for each other. It means a willful choice to love in a pure, self-giving way. “Freedom,” said John Paul II, “exists for the sake of love.” That is, when you love someone, you actually desire to place their happiness before your own. It’s a beautiful thing to behold.

Love that is free, faithful, total, and fruitful; love that sacrifices and unites. It’s nothing less than any of us deserve. I’d say that’s definitely worth a trip down the Slip ‘N Slide.

– – – –

About the blogger: Born a hop, skip, and jump from the Chesapeake Bay, Stephanie Calis now resides in Appalachia, thanks to love. Her sweet husband Andrew teaches English there. She delights in bike rides, good books, puddle jumping, The Avett Brothers, hammocks, avocados, and Andrew’s many argyle sweaters. She is thirsty. Knowing so many others are, too, she spent a missionary year with Generation Life speaking to students about human dignity and authentic love. Her passion is telling young women they possess immense worth and that pure, sacrificial love is real; she thinks a truthful understanding of sex and love is medicine for an aching culture. Stephanie blogs about love and wedding planning at Captive the Heart.

[Q&A: Relationships] If our feelings fade, is it real love?

The Q: From a guy, regarding a girl in his life: “I like her. Well, more than that. But I know I’m not ready to date. So, we decided to be friends. … I’m scared if we don’t talk about our feelings and just be friends, our feelings will go away. But, love is stronger than that, right? Like, if this is love, then it will continue to grow naturally, without having to always say, ‘I love ya,’ right?” -James*

The A: What James is really afraid of – or so says my hunch – is not that the feelings will fade. He’s afraid of what it means if they do. And that requires a long answer.

According to the brilliant Pope John Paul II – and as fabulously paraphrased in a book by Edward Sri – there are a couple sets of a couple kinds of love (not a typo). There’s subjective love and objective love and there’s immature love and mature love.

Subjective love is emotional (sentimentality!) and physical (sensuality!). It is the part of love widely described as warm and fuzzy. It’s based on what happens to you, both spontaneously and suddenly. And “no matter how intensely we experience these sensations, it is not necessarily love, but simply ‘a psychological situation.’ In other words, on its own, the subjective aspect of love is no more than a pleasurable experience happening inside of me.” (Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love, page 56)

Objective love is what exists between you and somebody else in reality (not as filtered by the lenses that are clouded by those sudden, spontaneous sensations). It’s a fact, not a feeling. It’s based on a virtuous friendship, the pursuit of a common good, seeking what’s best for your beloved, self-giving, commitment to and a sense of responsibility for the other person (as paraphrased from Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love, page 59).

Immature love looks inward. The immature lover is “absorbed in his own feelings. Here, the subjective aspect of love reigns supreme. He measures his love by the sensual and emotional reactions he experiences in the relationship.” –Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love, page 79

Mature love looks outward, in two ways. First, it isn’t based on feelings, but on the truth about the other person, on commitment to that person (as a result of the truth) and on selflessness. Second, the mature lover “actively seeks what is best for the beloved. The person with a mature love is not focused primarily on what feelings and desires may be stirring inside him. Rather, he is focused on his responsibility to care for his beloved’s good. He actively seeks what is good for her, not just his own pleasure, enjoyment and selfish pursuits.” And the “emotions still play an important part, but they are grounded in the truth of the other person as he or she really is (not my idealization of that person).” –Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love, pages 79-80

And as I gather (from Sri and from JP2), subjective, immature love propels a person into a relationship because of feelings, and it isn’t real love. Objective, mature love compels a person to remain in a relationship when there are feelings and when there aren’t, and it is real love.

Which brings us back to James.

He said he’s afraid his feelings will fade, and asked whether love’s stronger than that, and whether – if it’s love – it’ll grow on its own.

Which I sum up like this: If our feelings fade, is it (objective, mature) love?

You’ll know the answer if and when they do.

– – – –

Q&A is an occasional feature. If you have a Q, I can come up with an A (and if I don’t have an A, I’ll find somebody who does). To submit a question, email me at arleenwrites@gmail.com or leave it in the comments. No topic is taboo (although I can’t promise I will answer every question).

Click here to read more about Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love by Edward Sri.

*Real person, fake name.