|
We Loved
Up
Meaning of Love Introduction
Chapter 1 Meaning of Love
Chapter 2 Love
The Three Important Aspects of Relationships
The Emotional Aspect
The Satisfaction Aspect
The Goodness and Badness
Independence of the Three Aspects of Relationships
The Meaning of Love
Infatuation, Friendship, and Love
Love at First Sight
Importance of Various (Kinds of) Aspects
Sex and Love
The Impossibility of Sexual Communication
Being Loved for Yourself
Loving More Than One Person at the Same Time
Commitment and Loving More Than One Person
Rejection and Acceptance
Care and Concern
Love and Marriage
The Future of a Relationship
Love and Change and Rational Prediction
Jealousy
Independence and Sharing
"Meaningful" Relationships
About the Subject of Ethics
Ethics
Modification of the Analysis of Love
Good "For" and Good "To"
Ethical Principles and Spontaneity
Ethics and Sex
Sex and Intimacy
Relationships After Sex
Problems of the Inexperienced
On Being Used
The Causes of Feelings
Some Other Writers on Love
Some Personal Comment
| |
Chapter 13
A Kiss Is Just a Kiss --
The Impossibility of Sexual Communication
"The Impossibility of Sexual Communication" does not mean communication about
sex or about feelings is impossible; and I will address that at the end. I am
simply claiming at the beginning that communication by means of sex is
impossible.
Regardless of almost all the most recent popular beliefs and articles1 on the
topic, sex (or any touching) is not a form of communication! It does not
communicate love, care, concern, tender feelings, or anything. (One can imagine
a Bert Reynolds or Richard Pryor movie scene where either of them meets some
beautiful, but insecure, woman who very soon asks him to show her he cares about
her -- by making love to her. Surely Reynolds or Pryor would be able to give the
camera one of their most devilish, gleaming smirks. I would claim that the
absurdity of the request as a demonstration of caring or love is not diminished
by occurring instead on the third or eighth date or on a wedding night or
thereafter.) Neither is bad sex or no sex a communication of lack of love, lack
of concern, lack of tender feelings, or whatever. Sex is not an expression of
anything, let alone of love. Further, I think it is risky and potentially
harmful to believe that it is.
How one touches another is probably a matter of both inborn and early
personality and early learning that continues to develop to some extent through
one's lifetime. How you are touched as a child and how your parents teach you to
touch pets and other people will probably have a great deal of bearing on how
you touch others, both sexually and nonsexually as an adult. In regard
specifically to sex, what you learn about style or technique and in some cases
even your goals, point of view, or intentions for sex will depend a lot on what
you read and hear and on what your partner(s) teaches you -- perhaps in direct
verbal teaching, but possibly even moreso by response to your efforts. If one
has the proper curiosity, if one has the proper sensitivity to different ways of
touching and being touched, caressed, and massaged, if one has the proper
attitude of at least wanting to please the other person, and the sensitivity or
sense to look for clues to their response, if one learns by being with someone
who is demonstrably (and therefore educationally) responsive and positively
reinforcing to your touching them in pleasing ways, then one is likely to learn
more pleasing "technique" -- that is, personal style. With the wrong inborn
personality, bad early training, lack of knowledge, and/or not particularly
instructive or responsive partner(s), one's natural touch is not likely to be or
appear particularly loving, regardless of how one feels about their partner or
what one intends. And various combinations of inborn and developed personality
and training will help cause someone to be that much "better" or "worse" a
lover, along with whatever their feelings or intentions are at any given time
with any given partner. It is not just your feelings or intentions alone that
determine what sort of lover you are or what sort of touch you have.
This is not to say there is a standard set of directions for how to make love to
every person or to any given person each time. Different people like different
things; some people like different things at different times. But also,
different people learn different things and have different instincts about
touching. Some people will be more gentle, others more rough; some more
responsive to their partner's needs than others; some more responding to their
partner's actions, some more communicative or demonstrative about what they
enjoy; some will be more open to change; others, more desirous of certain
patterns; some will have a lighter touch, others will be more forcefully
massaging, others able to vary their touch; some will be clumsy and fumbling,
others very smooth; some will be comfortable and comforting. And this is apart
from what they are thinking and how they feel about their partner.
Whatever one's ability to please or displease one's partner probably says too
little in general to signal communication either of love or of the lack of it.
Selfish playboy seducers or selfish playgirl seductresses -- with only the
moment and their own desires on their minds may have little love for their
partner, but their actions might be quite gentle and stimulating. And on the
other hand, there are certainly plenty of people who love others but who have
little idea of how to please their loved one sexually, and who therefore may
appear in bed either to be rough, unloving, insensitive, or stupid, though none
of those may be the case.
A tender kiss is not necessarily a sign of tender feelings. It may be just the
way, for whatever reason, that person kisses. Some people kiss better than
others. They might be able to send a shiver down the spine of almost anyone they
kiss; more people who kiss them might enjoy it better. At a charity kissing
booth they might make lots more money than anyone else. But that is not a sign
in any way that they are feeling particularly loving toward, or in love with,
whom they kiss. And it does not mean that in general they are more loving than
anyone who does not kiss as well. Kissing and touching are arts. They depend on
knowledge, sensitivity to the moment and to one's own and the other person's
textures and pressures, positioning, timing, etc. How one touches, kisses,
manipulates, or has intercourse is not necessarily any sort of sign of any inner
feeling. It is simply a sign of how that person makes love to you at that
moment, given the way you kiss, play with, caress, respond to, and have
intercourse with him or her. And since there is no guaranty or even a social
convention that kissing or touching or making love in a certain way is a sign of
loving feelings, it does not have to be. A person might kiss you (in a certain
way) for any number of reasons, and the reason they have might not be that they
are intending to tell you they love you. Your taking it that way would be your
misunderstanding, not their lying or even (intentionally) deceiving you. Someone
might kiss you out of gratitude, lust, loneliness, friendly affection, simple
fondness, pity, experimentation, a test of how you will react, to say good
night, because they think you expect or want them to, or whatever.
Taking tender (or however), pleasant, "loving" gestures as a sign of loving
feelings and being correct about it is still not understanding a communication.
Communications are messages a communicator tries to send, not just anything
someone thinks they perceive is being said or sent, even if the content, of what
they infer or mistakenly think is being said, is true. Even reading body
language or signs correctly is not being communicated to; it is being a
detective or sensitive student of human nature. When you are right it is because
you are perceptive, not because the other person has (intentionally) told you
anything; and when you are wrong, it is because you made an error, not because
they made an error or lied to you. If someone tries to hide pain from you, for
example, but you can tell anyway that they are in pain, it is not because they
have told you about their pain, but because you were perceptive enough to
discover it for yourself. Communication involves some sort of intention, by the
teller, to convey a meaning in some sort of conventional manner. Communication
involves both an intention (to make something known) and convention (as a means
of expressing it). Any action can be a sign of things -- babies can signify pain
by crying -- but such non-conventional signs can often signify almost anything
(in the baby's case, hunger, thirst, pain, over tiredness, gas, wet diapers,
being too hot or too cold, loneliness, boredom...), and therefore they are not
communication in the normal sense. The meteorologist can forecast the weather
from certain signs, but that is not because nature is communicating with him. A
baseball batter may guess what pitch a pitcher with bad telegraphing habits is
about to pitch to him, but the pitcher is certainly not trying to tell, nor in
the normal sense telling, the batter what pitch he is going to throw as if they
had met beforehand and fixed the game. One cannot tell whether his or her
partner has cooked one's favorite meal because he or she has wrecked the car or
has some other bad news, has no other food in the house, wants that meal
themself, has good news, is feeling loving, or just thought it was time to have
it again. Actions like those can be a sign of anything or nothing and therefore
are not a communication at all.
A person who would rely only on such non-conventional signs is very likely to
end up in trouble. For example, a person who assumes his spouse no longer loves
him because she no longer often kisses him might not find out until he has made
damaging accusations (or actions) that something outside the relationship is
simply troubling her or that she does not feel well. Likewise, a girl who thinks
she is loved because she is kissed or gently touched or made love to in a nice
way may be quite drastically mistaken. There are an abundant number of short
stories and television and movie plots where mistaken or misinterpreted
"communications" cause harm. Many of these are simply reflections of the kinds
of mistakes that occur in real life.
One more argument that "loving" body language is not communication is the
following one: Consider the baseball pitcher who telegraphs his pitches. Suppose
he, either purposely or unintentionally, telegraphs the pitch that he does not
throw. Say, he telegraphs fast ball but throws the slider. If the batter has
read the telegraphed signal and sets for the wrong pitch and strikes out, he may
have been fooled or deceived, or he may have deceived himself -- but he was not
lied to. He could have no grounds, and would appear crazy or a fool, to claim to
the press later that he had struck out because the pitcher had lied to him about
what he was going to throw. But if reading such signals is communication, he
would have been lied to if the pitcher had intentionally telegraphed the wrong
pitch. But even in reality, if a pitcher intentionally telegraphs a wrong pitch
to a batter, the pitcher is only trying to trick or deceive the batter, not lie
to him. (All lies may be tricks or deceptions, but not all tricks or deceptions
are lies.) Hence, reading such signals or making them is not communicating.
In regard to "loving" body language: if a person tells someone he loves them
when he knows he does not, this is lying. But kissing a person one does not love
(such as out of sympathy or pity, or as a very polite way of saying good night,
or just out of lust or loneliness or appreciation or simple fondness) is not
lying, nor is it even necessarily deceiving them. In this day and age of so much
casual sex, one who reads love into every kiss might even be guilty of
self-deception. Now, it would be self-contradictory to tell someone you love
them but you do not love them. But there is no contradiction in tenderly kissing
someone and then telling them you do not love them and you want them to
understand you did it because you just wanted to kiss them, because you feel
affection but not love for them, because you were drunk, because you felt
lustful, because you meant it as a good night gesture, or because you just
wanted to be friends. Since this would not be a contradiction, a kiss cannot
mean love.
It seems to me that it is terribly important that people understand what sex
means both to themself and to the other person, preferably before engaging in
it, if they want to have a better chance of avoiding harmful misunderstandings.
And the best way to find out what it means to each other is to discuss it in
words. Then you are actually communicating what sex means to you -- how you feel
about it, why you want to have it, why you think it is right to have it with
that person now, how you think you are likely to respond tomorrow to having it
today, how you feel about the person, what you expect, want, or think about the
relationship, etc. Such a discussion might give better understanding than
guessing about body language, particularly guessing in the dark. Sexual intimacy
for most people, even in this day and age, is still a very important kind of
experience, and it can be devastating if one later finds out it did not have the
kind of meaning or importance for the other person that it did for you and that
you thought it had and wanted it to have for him or her.
When I taught classes and discussed love as a philosophy topic, I often said
that I thought there was nothing wrong in asking someone after a kiss why they
kissed you, particularly the first time or on a first date. Two students in the
past have objected to the idea. One, a former sailor said, "hell, you don't need
to ask and spoil the mood. When you came off the ship in a port and all those
girls were standing around saying 'hey, sailor, you want to have a good time?'
you knew there was no love involved on either side. The only point is your also
trying not to get money involved either, though that is what she wants." Maybe
so, but such a case is hardly the normal circumstances for a first kiss, caress,
or passion with someone you are going out with; I had not exactly been (nor am I
now) talking about dates between sailors and wharf-walkers. The other student
said that asking for the reason for a kiss even on a date would spoil the mood,
ruin the romance, be embarrassing, and cost you any further kisses, sex, or
loving responses. I replied that happened sometimes but was far more rare than
the times it helped you gain an understanding of each other and made it even
more desirable and nice. He just shook his head and said he could not imagine
his ever asking anything like that at such a time. Then it happened to him. He
came into class one day and said a girl he went out with over the weekend kissed
him and asked him why he had kissed her, what it had meant to him. I and the
rest of the class were very interested in his reply and what happened. But he
said he was so flabbergasted by the fact she had asked him that the only thing
he could think to say was to ask whether she had taken my course. She hadn't.
(Had never kissed me either.)
At any rate, kissing or holding hands or even more intimate sex can be for any
of a number of motives and can mean almost anything. If you care about why a
person wants to hold your hand or kiss you or go to bed with you, you might be
better off asking them. And hopefully they will not lie to you. But whether they
do or not, at least you will not be deceiving yourself into thinking it has a
meaning that is in no way intended. And you will avoid any accidental
misunderstandings. There may not be anything wrong with two particular, mature
people making love with each other with both knowing they are doing so simply
because they want to and have had a nice time together and are in the mood and
that it portends nothing in terms of commitment for either in the future
(assuming also there is nothing else in their circumstances, such as one of them
having venereal disease or being married to someone who does not deserve being
cheated on, etc., that would make the act wrong). But there is something wrong
(all other things being equal) with it when one thinks it means much more to the
other than it actually does. And it may be easily prevented if they discuss the
matter ahead of time, particularly if both are honest.
Of course, a perceptive person takes more than the other person's word into
account, since perhaps they are lying or perhaps (and this can be quite likely
with less experienced people) deceiving themselves about what it means to them.
A naive, innocent young person may be more vulnerable to, and later hurt by,
being loved and left than they honestly think they will be. Discussion is still
better than no discussion; at least it can help prevent unintentional
misunderstanding, and it may help uncover deception or self-deception before
(more) harm is done.
Sometimes people think sex is the only way they can show concern or loving
feelings, but this is false. You can always tell someone you love them and how
you feel about them, even in difficult or complicated cases. At the very least,
even if you are not good at describing your feelings, you could describe to them
how you would like to act, rather than acting that way without talking. Saying
you would like to kiss or cuddle or make love to someone tells as much (or more)
than does trying to kiss them, hug them, or actually kissing them or hugging
them. Suppose you have certain desires for another, but desires you feel would
best not be acted upon or fulfilled. It seems to me that rather than simply
stifling or ignoring such desires and saying nothing to the other person, one
might, at an appropriate time, simply verbally express the desire by saying
something like: "gee, I really would like to (go to the dance with you, kiss
you, play tennis with you, discuss politics with you, make love to you, etc.)
but I don't think I ought to (or cannot now) because ...." This way the other
person can at least know that you care about them in certain ways. Sometimes
that is important. They may thank you for your comments, or say they feel the
same way, or they may disagree about the correctness of abstinence, or they may
say that they do not feel the same way, at least not at this time. They could
also, if they are not nice or understanding, get angry or hostile, but this
probably will not usually happen; and if it did, it might show you they were not
"made in heaven" for you anyway.
Of course, talking is not necessarily romantic even if you are telling someone
how much you love them (especially if you do not say it very well), but romance
is not always (or perhaps ever) communication. The two are different; and may be
appropriate at different times. Sometimes it is more appropriate to communicate
and sometimes it is more important to be romantic, to touch, and/or to be
passionate. The point is not to confuse romance, touching, or passion with
communication.
There have been a number of girls I have loved in the sense of having
passionate, romantic attractions toward, and with whom I got along very well and
satisfyingly in many ways, but with whom sexual activity of varying degree would
have been a bad idea for various reasons, even though desired. It was often very
important to talk about this with them or at least to talk around the subject in
such a way as to make each others' feelings and intentions known. This often
added much to the relationship. If you love someone or miss someone or want
someone, but know having them would not be for the best for each other, there is
nothing wrong, and there can be something beautiful, in telling them that,
rather than in just ignoring the desires or pretending to the other that those
desires are non-existent.
One of my closest and fondest loves was a girl who was already engaged to
someone when I met her. We never kissed. But we spent hours talking and walking.
We knew how we felt about each other because of the things we said to each
other. That knowledge enriched our relationship and our lives. We probably would
have married each other, had she not already been committed to another, whom she
also loved; and he and she were very good for each other. Our relationship took
nothing away from their commitment and their relationship. Her other love, and
marriage to him, took nothing away from our friendship or our feelings for each
other.
Some of the closest people are those who have grown old loving each other but
behaving simply as loving friends because they were committed (at least to be
faithful sexually) to others or because sexual activity of whatever sort might
not have been right for some other reason. Still they could communicate
(verbally -- by telling or writing) to each other their feelings without trying
to do it by making a pass, kissing, or having any degree of sex. Just as sex is
not a form of communication about feelings and concerns, words about those
feelings and concerns can be a communication without sex. And it can be an
important and enriching communication.
1One example is Stephen Thayer's "Close Encounters" (March, 1988, Psychology
Today): "...touch is the most powerful of all the communication channels -- and
the most carefully guarded and regulated." Thayer then goes on to point out five
categories of touching: functional-professional (where "touch must be devoid of
personal messages"), social-polite (e.g., handshake), friendship- warmth,
love-intimacy, sexual-arousal. However, I believe it is not the kind of touch
that communicates or carries a message, but the social, verbal, and/or logical
aspects of the circumstances in which the touch occurs. A woman patient of a
male gynecologist, during a breast examination, for example, would, of course
generally be upset and draw back if the doctor, while touching her, said "You
know I find you very exciting." But it would be just as shocking and upsetting
if he said it before he touched her. It is not the manner of his touch, but the
inappropriateness of his remarks and the uncertainty of what his actions and
intentions will be in that kind of vulnerable situation that is upsetting. Or
suppose after a normal, professional breast examination, a doctor thinks he may
have missed or ignored something. The appropriate action would be to schedule
another appointment, not to mention it to the woman at a party they both happen
to attend and suggest she let him check her breasts again in a back bedroom. Not
because his touch might be any different but because the circumstances or
social/emotional "logic" of the situation is meaningful. Or consider a neck
massage; it could be given by a professional masseuse, a physical therapist, a
nurse, a fellow co-worker (or even a stranger) who sees someone in obvious
discomfort huddled over a computer, a lover, one's mother, or whatever. The
massage itself may be indistinguishable whether given by one person or by
another; it is the circumstances in which it is given, and the understood
relationship between the people, that contributes to the emotional "feeling", or
non-feeling accompanying the massage. A husband might give a purely chiropractic
neck massage to his wife in a crowded office or after they have had all the sex
either wants. Yet his touch (of her neck) may be the same as when he hopes to
sexually arouse her. And the way she responds to the massage will have to do
with the context in which it occurs, and with how she feels at the time. Even in
the bedroom, if she is angry with him about something, or feeling particularly
dispassionate, she may not even be relaxed by his neck massage, let alone
aroused. It is not the way someone touches you that means anything in the way
communication does; it is the appropriateness of touch in the context of a given
situation and in the context of the relationship (at that moment) between the
touchers that is important. Even being hit by someone does not, by itself
without a context or an accompanying verbal message, tell you why they hit you
or what it means. They could even have mistaken you for someone else or assumed
incorrectly that you did something terrible.
Of course touch can be meaningful in a given context; but it is meaningful in
the sense of "significant" or "important" or just "highly irregular or unusual",
or "terribly inappropriate", not in the sense of conveying any specific message.
If a stranger were to try to feel a woman's breasts for lumps or if her doctor
were to caress her breasts rather than medically examine them, it would be
meaningful in the former sense, not the latter. If she says "What is the meaning
of this!" or "What are you doing!", she is expressing indignation or moral
outrage at what he is doing, not at how he is doing it. And she is certainly not
simply asking a literal question. But such a sense or use of meaning is not
peculiar to touching. If a teacher were to be intentionally teaching French in
the class he is supposed to be teaching geometry, that would be meaningful and
questionable in the same way. Similarly if his students were having a food fight
in the classroom or if you caught someone telling your child lies about you or
if a reporter turned in to his editor a story written backwards.
Touch can also be beneficial, right, reassuring, or otherwise appropriate -- it
can be meaningful in a good way. Thayer's article points out a number of such
possible situations. But whether touch is right or beneficial or not depends on
the circumstances and the consequences. It depends on a number of factors, but
communication -- what the touch means, which by itself is nothing -- is not one
of them.
| |
Meaning of Love
Home Work
|
