Fors Clavigera

Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For Heaven and the future's sakes.
[from Robert Frost, "Two Tramps in Mud Time", 1934]

What's the difference between loving and being-in-love?

What does love have to do with need? There's this awful word, "needy"; I have an idea what it means, I own up to being needy at times. I think it's an awful word because it implies that to need is bad, and I don't think that that's the root of the problem described as "neediness". I think the root of the problem has more to do with power and control.

The behavior twist called "neediness" is, I think, better described as an attempt by one person to extract their salvation from another, in the absence of consent. It comes from fear and pain; it leads quickly to a downward spiral; it becomes a pattern of unuseful behavior because it does not solve the fear and pain -- it can easily get to be a stuck pattern, obstructing the clear thought necessary to find a solution.

I take this thought from Dworkin via Figleaf: not until no really means no, and maybe really means maybe, can yes be free. This applies equally in the emotional sphere as in the sexual one (a sexual sphere? how roly-poly!): emotional blackmail will not pay off.

The cure? Well, there's always a chance of finding interlocking neuroses by blind luck, or by a suitable application of the "Prince Charming" and "Sleeping Beauty" myths. We call it "falling in love" mostly in the magazines.

I think the fear and pain behind "needy" come from scarcity thinking -- the feeling that there is a limited and insufficient amount of love that exists. If we feel like that, then we tend towards grasping and clutching. The counter is to engage (wilfully) in abundance thinking -- there is an abundance of love, and ever-growing. One way to make that concrete in your life is to give, to yourself and to others, as if it were true.

Another idea is clear and explicit negotiation. The BDSM communities have learned to negotiate clearly about limits; consent freely given. It's more difficult to do this in the emotional sphere, for many reasons: it's harder to see emotions, it's harder to reach the common understanding. Also there's a lot of cultural message that tells us that our emotions are beyond our conscious control: we "fall in love", which is by definition involuntary. I think that's not right, I think that our emotions are no less a choice than is our vision. I'd rather say "leap into love" than "fall in love"; I'd rather take responsibility for my whole self, not imagine that my self is my ego, washed helplessly by the overwhelming tide of my id.

There should be no shame in making a conscious decision about a relationship, nor in using an emotional safeword to indicate a need to take extra care, to re-open negotiations. And consciously-chosen love is not less true than the involuntary, imaginary, kind.

Every human needs to love. Every human needs to be loved. Those needs can be met, without self-deception. You don't need to trick yourself, or anyone else.

Labels: consent, love

// posted by R Durham @ 23:48