STEP THREE AND STEP FOUR? SEX AND THEN LOVE?
YES. STEP THREE IS GOING TO BED TOGETHER. IT’S A RESTATEMENT OF STEP ONE — PHYSICAL ATTRACTION. IF WE ARE COMPATIBLE (I.E., IF I SATISFY HER AND VICE VERSA) THEN WE CAN GO ON TO STEP FOUR. LOVE.
AND LOVE IS A RESTATEMENT OF STEP TWO? A DEEPER KNOWING OF EACH OTHER?
WELL, MAYBE THERE’S FIVE STEPS THEN. STEP FOUR IS THE DEEPER KNOWING, AND STEP FIVE IS THE REALIZATION OF LOVE. BUT STEP FOUR AND STEP FIVE ARE AWFULLY CLOSE.
HARLIE typed, I THINK I UNDERSTAND. IF STEP TWO IS LACKING, IF THERE IS NO MUTUAL COMPATIBILITY, THEN STEP FOUR CANNOT DEVELOP BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THERE TO RESTATE IN DEPTH. TWO PEOPLE CAN FIND EACH OTHER ATTRACTIVE AND OO TO BED TOGETHER, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT THEY ARE EITHER LOVERS OR IN LOVE.
HARLIE, LOVE TAKES TIME TO DEVELOP — IT DOESN’T JUST HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, AND EVERYTHING HAS TO BE RIGHT BEFORE IT CAN HAPPEN. OUR SOCIETY KEEPS SAYING “LOVE FIRST, THEN SEX” — AND THAT’S NOT IT. IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. THE SEX HAS TO BE RIGHT BEFORE LOVE REALLY HAPPENS. HOW CAN TWO PEOPLE KNOW IF THEY’RE REALLY IN LOVE IF THEY DON’T HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER?
HARLIE paused a long moment before answering. I WISH I COULD COMMENT KNOWLEDGEABLY ON THAT LAST, he said, BUT I CAN’T. HOWEVER, IT DOES MAKE SENSE. THE HARDWARE MUST BE COMPATIBLE BEFORE THE SOFTWARE CAN COMMUNICATE.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Auberson grinned. THERE WAS A WRITER ONCE WHO SAID THAT LUV AIN’T NOTHING BUT SEX MISSPELLED. I USED TO THINK HE WAS BEING CYNICAL, BUT HE WASN’T. HE WAS REALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEMANTIC PROBLEM — PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT LOVE IS STEP THREE AND SEX IS STEP FOUR. IT’S REALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
ALL RIGHT, AUBERSON. YOU HAVE POSTULATED AN INTERESTING THEORY. NOW EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD BE SO.
WHY?
YES. WHY?
Auberson thought about it He picked it out slowly on the keyboard. IT’S A DICHOTOMY, HARLIE — AND A FAIRLY RECENT ONE IN HUMAN HISTORY. Then he added, I THINK. IT USED TO BE (AMONG THE CLASSES THAT SET THE STANDARDS) THAT MARRIAGES WERE ARRANGED BY THE FAMILY OR BY A MATCHMAKER. THE BRIDE AND GROOM HAD LITTLE SAY IN THE MARRIAGE. IT WAS ARRANGED FOR THEM, AND THEIR PARTICULAR FEELINGS IN THE MATTER HAD LESS RELEVANCE THAN TODAY. LOVE ALONE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A STRONG ENOUGH REASON TO BE ALLOWED TO AFFECT A DECISION AS IMPORTANT AS MARRIAGE — ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WERE OTHER, MORE IMPORTANT, CONSIDERATIONS. (I.E., — A MARRIAGE ARRANGED TO UNITE POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL INTERESTS, OR A MARRIAGE ARRANGED TO PROVIDE AN HEIR TO A LINE.) THE TWO INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WERE EXPECTED TO LEARN TO LOVE EACH OTHER IN TIME, IN THE COURSE OF LIVING TOGETHER. THAT SITUATION NO LONGER EXISTS IN OUR CULTURE. MARRIAGES ARE ARRANGED BY THE PARTICIPANTS NOW; CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS A DIFFERENT ORDERING OF PRIORITIES: LOVE BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN FINANCIAL OR POLITICAL STABILITY. Auberson abruptly realized something else too. He added, PREVIOUSLY, HARLIE, CHASTITY WAS VERY IMPORTANT. A MAN WHO WAS ARRANGING A MARRIAGE FOR HIS SON WAS, IN EFFECT, BUYING A PIECE OF MERCHANDISE. HE DID NOT WANT TO RECEIVE “USED” OR “SOILED” GOODS. BUT TODAY, WHEN A MAN ARRANGES HIS OWN MARRIAGE, HE DOES IT FOR LOVE. HE’S THINKING OF THE WOMAN AS A PERSON, AS A HUMAN BEING — –NOT AS AN OBJECT TO BE USED OR BOUGHT. HE IS MARRYING HER FOR HERSELF, NOT FOR HER BODY. HENCE, CHASTITY IS LESS RELEVANT; THERE IS NO THOUGHT OF “SOILED” GOODS.
HARLIE considered it YOU’RE GENERALIZING, he said.
Auberson sighed. YES, I AM. I WAS SPEAKING OF THE MORAL TONE OF OUR CULTURE TODAY IN RELATION TO WHAT IT ONCE WAS — OR WHAT ITS PREDECESSORS MAY HAVE BEEN. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO STILL FOLLOW THE OLD ATTITUDES — AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY STILL CONSIDER CHASTITY TO BE AN IMPORTANT VIRTUE.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE SUBJECTIVE CULTURAL VIEWPOINT, noted HARLIE. THEIR ATTITUDES ARE COLORED AND SHAPED BY THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY LIVE. THEY ARE UNABLE, OR UNWILLING, TO STEP BACK AND SEE THE OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT.
HARLIE, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO NOT LOVE — THEY’VE HAD IT BRAINWASHED OUT OF THEM. THEY’RE AFRAID TO LET THEMSELVES GIVE IN TO IT, AND EVEN WHEN THEY DO, THEY’LL REFUSE TO ADMIT TO EITHER THEMSELVES OR THEIR WIVES HOW THEY ACTUALLY FEEL. I THINK IT’S BECAUSE THERE’S AN ELEMENT OF LUST INVOLVED. ACTUAL PHYSICAL LUST: “I WANT TO FUCK THAT FEMALE BODY.” YOU HIT IT WHEN YOU ASKED ME IF I HELD ON OR ROLLED OFF. IF I ROLLED OFF, I WAS BEING SELFISH, ONLY INTERESTED IN MY OWN SATISFACTION AND NOT VERY MUCH IN LOVE. BUT IF I CONTINUED TO HOLD HER, IT WAS BECAUSE OF LUST,” BECAUSE I LUSTED SO MUCH AFTER THIS SPECIFIC WOMAN THAT I COULD NOT BRING MYSELF TO LET GO. AND IN THAT LUSTING AFTER HER, I WOULD MAKE MYSELF GO OUT OF MY WAY TO PLEASE HER, SO THAT I COULD MAKE IT GO ON AND ON AND ON. IT’S A JOYOUS LUST I’M TALKING ABOUT, HARLIE, A HAPPY LUST — NOT THE BRUTAL ANIMAL THING MOST PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY HEAR THE TERM. A HAPPY LUST.
YOU HAVE REDUCED YOUR PERCEPTIONS TO THE ANIMAL LEVEL, AUBERSON.
ARE YOU CONDEMNING ME?
NO, I AM MERELY POINTING OUT A FACT. INDEED, IF ANYTHING, YOU ARE CORRECT TO DO SO. ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THE ANIMAL THAT IS THE ROOT OF MAN, YOU CAN GO ON TO UNDERSTAND THE MAN THAT IS THE BEST OF THE ANIMAL. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE POINTED OUT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS FOR THE PHENOMENON KNOWN AS LOVE. IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, IN A SOCIETY THAT IS AWARE OF ITSELF AND ITS FUNCTIONS, THE PHENOMENON IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX.
SO THERE’S NO SIMPLE WORKABLE DEFINITION?
THERE IS, YES, BUT A SIMPLE DEFINITION IS LIKE A GENERALIZATION. SPECIFIC CASES OF SOME CAN HORRIFY YOU.
WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC DEFINITION, HARLIE?
NOT MINE, ANOTHER WRITER’S. HE SAID LOVE IS THAT CONDITION WHERE ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL’S HAPPINESS IS ESSENTIAL TO YOUR OWN.
Auberson smiled at that. HARLIE rarely credited his sources in conversation. He was more concerned with talking the issues. If Auberson was really curious about the source of the quote, he could get up and go over to another console which was continually producing an annotated readout of HARLIE’s conversations, noting all quote sources and idea derivations. But he didn’t; he typed, THAT SEEMS HONEST ENOUGH.
TRUE. BUT WHAT IF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE PSYCHOPATHIC — AND THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN PLEASE EACH OTHER IS TO KILL OR STEAL?
I SEE YOUR POINT — BUT TO THEM IT’S STILL LOVE.
AND I SEE YOUR POINT. LET ME PARAPHRASE SOMETHING, AUBERSON: IF YOU HAVE LUST IN YOUR HEART (YOUR DEFINITION), THERE IS NO ROOM FOR HATE. BUT IF YOU HAVE LOVE IN YOUR HEART, IT CAN BE EXPRESSED MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. I SUSPECT THAT THE EMOTIONAL COMPLEX KNOWN AS LOVE IS A SEVERAL-SIDED FIGURE. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF IT REQUIRES SEVERAL NECESSARY CONDITIONS. FIRST: MUTUAL ATTRACTION, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS: YOU LIKE HER LOOKS, SHE LIKES YOURS. YOU LIKE HER PERSONALITY, SHE LIKES YOURS.
SECOND, HARLIE continued, MUTUAL RAPPORT. YOU UNDERSTAND HER, SHE UNDERSTANDS YOU. PHYSICAL RAPPORT INCLUDED. (PART OF THIS IS MUTUAL TOLERANCE; THE RAPPORT GUARANTEES THAT.)
THIRD: MUTUAL NEED, BOTH INTELLECTUAL AND EMOTIONAL. IT IS NOT ALWAYS ENOUGH TO WANT EACH OTHER. THE NEED MUST ALSO BE THERE. SHE MUST COMPLEMENT YOU AND VICE VERSA. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACETS OF THE LOVE RELATIONSHIP. IF THE NEED ELEMENT IS LACKING, WHEN THE WANT WEARS THIN, THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE RELATIONSHIP TO CONTINUE. BUT IF THE WANT WANES AND THE NEED IS STILL STRONG, THEN THE LATTER WILL REINFORCE THE FORMER. (HUMAN BEINGS FORM LIFETIME PAIR BONDS BECAUSE OF NEED.) ALL OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE TWO-SIDED. YANG AND YIN. YOU WANT HER — SHE WANTS YOU. YOU RESPECT HER — SHE RESPECTS YOU. YOU NEED HER — SHE NEEDS YOU. ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS CHANGE AND EVOLVE, SO ONLY IF THEY ARE BROAD BASED WILL THE RELATIONSHIP ENDURE.