The desire to fuck is in itself love. This I accept as self-evident. Wanting the way we do in our desire is an initial stage in the development of love. We do develop or fashion love out of our desire; we do have to make it from this material, and desire is a material.
Physical desire, as we like to say, whether we are being positive or subtractive in our assessments, is a warning, an alarm, a message from a messenger about something that could happen, maybe should happen. What messenger? Who is the messenger? All messengers are angels. This is what angel means. Angel, in Hebrew, pronounced not so far from the Spanish, means just this, a messenger.
Desire is a message that must be heard, must be listened to, must be read, must then be recited, returned as it is given. It must be chosen as a response to the love that has arisen with the desire. Fucking is natural; fucking is normal; wanting to fuck between consenting adults is good.
All messages are themselves demands upon us. They must be acknowledged.; they must be held in attention. If love is not then acted on, the desire that has arisen suffers; the ensuing potential love rots in its potentiality that demands actualization, wants to become actual. Not all potential is so required; the demands differ with situation. The love that has arisen with the desire is corrupted, fouled, debased when not chosen; love is pro-active; love cannot be passive. We have a plethora of means to debase love in our time.
Sex as sex acted on as sex, physically, is not the debasement. Why we have so many subtracting euphemisms for sex and sexuality only points to our higher potential for fucking up what has happened when we fuck. (See! Fucking something up is what we say, and we wonder why we have the attitudes about fucking that we do.)
Avoiding the appropriate actions in response is what allows for this undermining of love. If a man or woman desire to fuck another consenting adult, this is a call to love–but are we big enough to love all the people we desire to fuck? Moreover, is it necessary to fuck everyone we would like to fuck?
At least acknowledging that love exists in the desire to fuck is a first step toward answerability, toward creating a place for desire to exist as a healthy expression of our sexuality. Maybe then we won’t have as many grotesque responses from women desiring women or men desiring men.
What really debases love is our irresponsibility in and for our desire. We do allow ourselves to make of fucking something other than what it can be, what it allows in potential for all ensuing actualities in love.
Love is a choice. The absence of the choice for love is in itself a choice and all choices have consequences. Make no mistake. Anyone who says sex is not love is an idiot. Sex is in itself love, but to say it is not love is to side step the choice of acting with love and for love. To believe sex is not love is like the girl with anorexia looking in the mirror and seeing that she is fat. Wanting to fuck somebody and fucking that somebody are love. I love you now, I love this minute, I love you as I fuck you, I love you until you leave, I love you forever, I love you until death do us part, I love you beyond my death, all of these are variations on love. I love you now but not in hour, or not tomorrow, or until we divorce, all of these speculative and not planned, although knowing them is a form of enlightenment.
Love is at the heart of humanity, that is a humanity when being human is to be humane; what is more humane, thus human, than love. Now the French still have one word for both words in English, humaine is both the English ‘human’ and the English ‘humane.’ The French notion is that to be human is to be humane; you cannot be the former without first being the latter. Without what we mean by humane there can be no human. Who disagrees?
Human is as humane does; humane does with love, with forgiveness, with compassion. The humane is what it means to love in this way your fellow humans, whether sexually, filially, friendly, et cetera. There are many ways to love, but lets not confuse the fact that there are kinds of love that are not sexual and should never be sexual. I am of course talking about healthy desire.
So then, again with possible gain, if I want to fuck somebody, a woman, a person, another human, this is love. Even when one who fucks does so with contempt; the contempt is what he uses to corrupt the love resulting in something less than kind, less than compassionate, less then humane. We animalize our actions day in and day out. By doing so, we choose the homo-sapiens to the displacement of the human become only by choice. Fucking can be kindness, fucking can be compassionate, as well as passion; it is love as love that leads to transcendence, redemption, absolution. How do we miss so much so often. We are not going to say that rape is love, although the desire to fuck that might precede the rape–and I say might because there are instances of rape that do not begin with something as benign as the desire to fuck; there is rape that begins with the desire for violence, the desire to inflict pain, punishment, debasement–could have been other than what ensues in the rape, which is as simple as not stopping as soon as the woman says no, or makes no clear through gesture, expression, posture, any one of numerous ways to communicate ‘no, please stop.”
Now, how does love function in the creation of humanity? And humanity is a creation. The essential features of humanity are choices made with love, by love, for love, from love. They would have to be, otherwise there is always going to be something less than humane in our humanity. We should know that there is little of what we call humanity without love; love is necessary in order to be humane. How many times need I repeat myself. Let’s call it motif.
Of course we could say what we have herein about love and still do otherwise. The history of the world stands in counterpoint, and the current events of most of the world on the news is like its past. It does not seem to be a matter of course to say humanity is love. We must love those we can love and humanity presents itself to us every day; our opportunities to love are innumerable; the options to act humanely are nearly limitless. But we don’t choose the humane. We assume to be human in our way of understanding is enough. Our way is to make being a Homo-sapiens is synonymous with being human; our desire to make things more natural leaves us in contempt for things as they have been arranged by civilization. We choose to turn away even when we do not choose to do anything. By doing nothing, by not acting on the ability to be humane we choose the inhumane, sins of omission again. Inhuman is as inhumane does.
Love is essential in acts of compassion and acts of kindness. It is essential in all tenderness, in all tolerance. Love, therefore cannot be greed, it cannot be sloth, it cannot be gluttony, it surely cannot be hate or pride. Power is often lustful and greedy and gluttonous. Love of wealth, the same. When love of wealth leads to philanthropy–loving money is not the same as loving what money can do. The kind of philanthropy needed in society can only be enacted by the wealthy. But then when philanthropy is vanity or pride then it is not philanthropy, it is business, it is lust or greed or gluttony again. Be seen not praying in the synagogues, Yehuda Ben Miriam says. Who does not know the synagogues are the churches, the mosques, the schools, the gala events where the rich overpay for plates and make donations they can easily afford to the applause of audiences. In proportion of their wealth, the rich often do not give more to charity than the poor. But we believe that all is well that ends well, and perhaps charity is the beginning of the reformation of the rich. But it’s not the dollars they give that do dazzle the poor nonetheless, but the pittance of a percentage of their wealth that is formative in maintaining the rich elite are even more powerful. Their greed is evident in how tiny a percentage they actually do give; that’s why nothing changes and the rich continue to get rich and poor everywhere poorer.
Love is the antidote for the poisons of the deadly sins.
Our notions of love, however, are often skewered. How we manage it not always to the best of our potential. We are too exclusive with love, or we are too narrow in our definition of love, where love is acceptable, what love is and for whom and when. We foreshorten, we limit, we narrow, we constrict, we do not fully experience the broadness of love, the depth, the length, the endurance of love and loving. Man loving woman, man loving man, woman loving woman. I have not gotten to man loving dog like he does his lover his wife, his girlfriend, his just having met tonight other; or his boyfriend, another man or another woman for a woman or a man. Herein let it be warm, living adults. The dead, the animals, the children are not objects of my love when the love I speak of dare speak the name sex. To fuck or not to fuck is still a question, but let it not be a question if it is to fuck who should not be fucked. To fuck is love, but there are sets and sub-sets here to consider and to understand.
If sex is a choice between consenting adults, it is fine. This is why rape is not sex because sex is love. When there is an active process on the part of one lover to eliminate love, then the act of fucking becomes masturbation, which of course can be sex with someone I love, but to use a woman’s vagina as hand is somewhat disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as using penis as weapon, as knife or club in the act of rape.
The first and the last in being human when human is not merely being another kind of animal in the world is to love and love even more. In this love of your fellow humans, you choose the humane. You must. In doing so, you champion humanity. Kindness has its butterfly effect.
Now, much of what I have herein said about humanity can be denied, it can even be held in skepticism. I do not, though, recognize the deniability of anything as proof of its non-existence. The fact my dreams are not outside my head within reach of my finger tips is no reason to conclude that they are not real, that they have no veracity. Because so many millions debase their offering of love when they have sex is by their own choice and not verification that sex and love are mutually exclusive.
The very inhumanity present in the world can be used as a rebuttal for some of what I have said about the humane, but then it would have to eliminate the references I’ve made about free-will as the essential ingredient in our recipe for the humane; humanity, if we recall, is a choice. I do not claim any determinism for being humane. It is a potential only and once more must be asserted through choosing to become actual. The fact it must be chosen leaves it subject to free-will, free-will an essential for freedom, freedom then an essential for love, for human/humane
To love or not to love is therefore the question.