Not All Love is Made Equal, or Should be, for a Good Reason

Not All Love is Made Equal

...and thank God for that.

The variation in the kind of love we can give aids in developing various aspects of our persona.  So, the love we can have for a flower, a same-gender friend vs the romantic love for an opposite gender, the love for parents, a niece, a nephew, a brother, a sister, nature, ALL directs us to, and develops various aspects of OUR natures.

When i see the love between TC, Rick, and Magnum, it tells me of the love of friendship 'without benefits'.  I see it in old Tamil movies, where one guy refers to another guy as his, 'nanban' (friend, but with more meaning than when used in the west or with reference to Faceook's 'friends'.  It means someone you trust, you can lay your life down for, is like family, someone close to your heart....which is why friendship plays a central role in old tamil movies to degrees never seen in western movies.) 

When you take sex, or the possibility of sex or romantic relationship, out of the equation, and pursue love of different types, we get a surge of something else within our persona.  The flow of energy moves from self-interest to pure interest and appreciation of the other without the return of sexual gratification.   

Sexual gratification is a sort of a 'great leveller'.  If you are theoretically open to having it with anyone, whatever their gender, etc, it immediately takes a sort of purity out of it.  That sort of purity is first experienced within the family, and from there, we learn to keep sex out of it except when it comes to a romantic relationship, and even then, only with a person of the opposite gender, and even then, with ONLY one person of the opposite gender.  This great narrowing of sexual expression enables a great broadening of the means by which the other aspects of our persona can express love.  Those means are the varieties of people we can pursue other sorts of love, with various returns, and even with minimal expectations.  We have friends, brothers, sisters, like brothers and like sisters (where they aren't biologically related but taken as family), people we share pasttimes, jobs, and so on.  

The thing about sex is its a great compensator.  In other words, if the sex is there or good, we tend to put up with a load of other crap in the relationship, and that just compromises the profound growth the relationship, and ourselves through it.  "yeah, we don't really get involved in each other's lives, but the sex is good."  This is promoted much in american movies as a 'good'.  In a relationship, we do not only need to put our best foot forward, but to forward our foot in the right direction, and away from the bedroom, so as to develop other aspects of the relationship, and ourselves through it.  

That is why narrowing sexual expression in favour of broadening the means by which we can express and develop, and develop and express, our other aspects enables the full and variable expression of our Freedom to Love.  We learn to love in different ways, and to hold off the sexual impulse in a relationship till we appreciate each other, and ourselves through it, even more.  In american movies, they talk about going to 'first base' which is kissing, 'second base' petting, 'third base' going below the waistline, and 'home-run' sex.  All of this avoids to mention all that has to be developed before getting into the field - and which explains their high divorce rates and multiple divorce rates for a single person.  Where is the first base of 'getting to know each other', second base of 'sharing pasttimes', third base of 'getting to know each others interests' and home run of 'getting involved in each others pasttimes as if it is our own, BEFORE the sexual bit?  It doesn't even occur to them, or to most.  

Sex isn't a problem, but it inhibits the development of much of ourselves.  That is why rather than seeing anyone as a potential sex escapade, it is reduced to someone of the opposite gender, and only one of the opposite gender.

SEXUAL consumerism

That is why i'm against the sexual consumerist ethos of 'fuck em all to feel free' and calling that, 'the freedom to love'.  Incorrect.  That compromises the freedom to love as it inhibits the various expressions of the idea of love.  

Of course, a homosexual could say that they can love their samesex partner and yet love another samesex person in a platonic way.  But the fact remains that sexual energy is still made available for all genders, or one's own gender.  Imagine a situation, like it has been since time immemorial, if sexual energy is limited to only the opposite gender.  How does one feel for one's own gender then?  Sex is not even a consideration.  That is when the creative juices flow instead, and that is when energy flows toward the flowering of another sort of love.  That is when platonic love flowers.  It is like Stephen Hawking, confined to the wheel chair, but has a greater appreciation of space than most.  When you close one door, the force out the other door increases.  That is what happens when you confine the sexual drive to just the opposite gender, and only one amongst them.

You see, it is a fact that friendships are first formed between the same gender.  That is why it is important to keep sex or romance out of it SO as to lead one to develop other aspects of one's personality in one's first relationships.  One develops shared pasttimes, interests, show interest in each others lives, etc, etc.  This is more of an effort to appreciate the other, and through that, to appreciate oneself.  But the moment you put sex into it, and especially at a young age, that's when the sexual impulse will tend to overshadow the development of all the other aspects of our persona.  

Just think about all those guys who have been 'successful' with 'scoring' with women from a young age.  Do you think they are well-developed all round?  No they're not.  So what do you think is going to happen if sex between the same sex is promoted?  The underdevelopment is going to start sooner as it is easier to get into bed with a samesex buddy sooner when you hit puberty than with someone of the opposite sex.  

Same thing with incest.  What if sexual promiscuity is promoted between family members? - which is already the case in principle as 'the freedom to love' as it is mistakenly thought to be so, refers to sex between 2 or more people being alright so long as they are adults.  That just validates incestual relationships when the parties are 'adults'.  They forget the principle that adults make the right decisions, and not that if the decision is made by an adult, it must be right.   

What happens to sibling love, or the love for one's mother or father, which is all supposed to be non-sexual, and thus hone other aspects of our personas, such as filial love and piety?  In such circumstances, all aspects of our persona goes out the window, and sexualisation and overall degeneration takes sooner than it would with same-gender sex.  The non-sexual nature of our first loves - our parents and siblings - is that which directs us to our selves as non-sexual beings.  And that is the first moral exemplar from which we desexualise a host of other types of relationships to make the most of it in different ways.  So, in the family, we learn to love as a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister.  That is a wide expression of The Freedom to Love (in various ways without sex).  And from that foundation, we move on to pursue friendships with the samesex, etc, all keeping sex out of it, and making the most of ourselves in other ways as a result.

Same thing with pedophillia.  What is regrettable about it is not just the act, but it meaning the death of something significant within the pedophile.  A grown man or woman can love a child as a mother, father, aunt, uncle, teacher, brother, friend, but when it is sexualised, all of the above is compromised.  All of one's potential to love freely is hammered down by the sex drive, and one becomes nothing more than a sexual creature who basically fucks anything.  Same thing goes for bestiality, incest.  It is perverse conditions that rears such people whom people abhor, but whom are supported in spirit by much that is generally approved and which basically hones ones tendency to be nothing more than a consumer.  In that, LGBT are no different from pedophiles.  Same perspective, different means.   

THE FREEDOM to love

The west, in their LGBT theology, has put humanity down a super-slippery greasy fireman's pole right down to hell, with children as the first victims.  The children, are now becoming the infantry for the sexual consumerist ethos that is going to consume the rest of our human potentials and freedom to love.  

The freedom to love requires the respect of boundaries wherein different sorts of love can thrive.  Proscriptions placed by nature to God cannot be done away with, without doing away with our potentials to be more than one guided by self-interest, immediate gratification, and relatively base pleasures.  

There is a reason why the ancient holy men in India viewed sex as an obstacle to more.  For them, liberty was to transcend our primitive urges in order to discover our primal and most profound potentials.  That is the difference between Primitive and Primal, with primitive being 'base', and primal being 'original'.  

In the west, liberty after the sexual revolution of the 60s, began to mean nothing other than TAKING liberties, expanding the buffet of consumerism to include not only 'designer' nonsense, but people of both genders as well.  From 'one night stands' to 'multiple stands in one night of all genders'.  The more liberties one could take, the more 'free' one was, and that itself developed as a 'designer brand' in its own right as it came to be believed that if you AREN'T taking liberties, you aren't free, you are 'conservative', a 'prude', a 'dork', etc.  So they produce a whole range of movies to promote this point amongst the young and introduce 'sex education' to children so they can 'do it right' younger, thus narrowing their idea of love itself, and they call THIS the 'Freedom to Love'?  Tragic comedy indeed.

This turns the ancient idea of Love on its head.  The freedom to love is the freedom to explore various ways we can express love, NOT the various people we can fuck.  And to express love in different ways requires relegating each sector of creation its own niche, not fucking everything from animals to flowers to siblings to one's own gender.  There is more to love than meets the eye of the western version of 'The Freedom to Love'.  

The freedom to love requires, paradoxically, restraining the sexual drive in various arenas and keeping it out permanently so as to develop other aspects of our persona, and our other potentials of expressing love, without sexual gratification.  That is when our own gender, parents, siblings, flowers, children, dogs, cats, etc, come in to develop our freedom to love in various ways.  

Even nuns and priests, Hindu Holy men, monks, and such, rule out all of humanity when it comes to sex, (or at least most of them do) so as to make more of their ability to love in more profound ways.  I've met quite a few of them decades ago, and some of them have a 'light' in them that few i've known do - other than my mom, who once told me that her first aspiration in life was to be a nun when she was young so that she could love and help people.  She's a living saint.

And that is how we should celebrate, and why we should be grateful that not all love is or should be made equal, so that we can be more than we would be if we took everything and everyone as potential 'friends with benefits'.  Friendship, besides all the other means by which we can love with our pants on, is a benefit in itself, and benefits the development of various aspects of ourselves and makes more of our Freedom to Love in different ways.   

edX

#love #relationships #lgbt #homosexuality #gay #gaymarriages #freedomtolove