Shakespearean Love - a myth?

[Karl Viktor]

I love you more than words can wield the matter, Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty - King Lear – Act 1, secene 1

So from what I've gathered over the years from sexual friends, they have a really hard time imagining love without sex. It seems that, in their view, sex isn't just one of many ways that romantic love can be expressed, but it is a completely vital ingredient, without which true love can not exist. I have pondered this a great deal, because when I learned that a lot of people think that way, it destroyed the idea that I had been tought ever since I was a child, namely that of Shakespearean love.

Basically what it means is that two people can not only connect on a deep emotional level (i.e. love) without sex, but that they can also maintain and deepen that connecion over time.

Edit: The stuff below didn't carry across as I had intended it to, so I'm putting it under a spoiler.

This is the basic plot of many of Shakespeare's literary works, and in fact, a common theme in fictions of all kind. One of the most well-known examples of of this type of love is that of Romeo and Juliet, who are so incredibly passionate about each other, even when they are physically separated from each other for most of their lives.

Edit: I'm not saying that Romeo and Juliet never had sex, just that their love endured, and indeed strengthened, even when they couldn't, meaning that sex isn't a neccessary ingredient of love, just an expression of it. That is what I mean by Shakespearean love.

Now you're probably thinking: How naive must I not be to have thought Romeo and Juliet was just an average couple? Of course sexual people want to have sex, that's why they are called sexual people.

Let's move on to some less figurative examples. I recently read the book 'for cause and comrades - why men fought in the civil war' by James M. McPherson. Quite early on it became clear to me that one of the major reasons many of the people volunteered, on both sides, was they thought that they had to go to war to defend their loved ones. Even after years in service, many of the soldiers and their wives still expressed their loves for one another through the letters they sent.

A sergeant in the 14th Indiana wrote to his wife in 1863, almost two years after he enlisted:

"I would give anything in my possession to be with you, but I am in the service of my country and I will serve it faithfully and do my duty and if I never see you more I will do nothing that will disgrace you or my children."

One Pennsylvania woman wrote to her husband in spring of 1864, over two years after her husband had enlisted:

"I awaken up at night and lay for hours wondering if I ever shall see my dear Pet again.... You are my all in this world and without you now my Pet I feel as though I could not live."

This phenomenon isn't limited just to the american civil war, it can be observed in distant times and places as well as under less extreme circumstances, where lovers are separated for lengthy periods of time.

Whether or not they would have wanted to express their love for one another through sex, if they could, isn't important, because if Shakespearean love does exist, then surely sexual people would be willing to make the sacrifice of not having sex, even when the barrier is not a physical one (geographical distance etc).

What I'm getting at here is in essence a number of quite philosophical ponderings regarding human nature.

We don't know if the Pennsylvania woman was cheating on her husband. Maybe it's just that people are more open about their need for sex today than earlier. That would imply it's society that has changed, not human behavior, and that Shakespearean love has in fact never existed.

Maybe people in previous times had a different sense of duty, and indeed of love itself, implying that Shakespearean love has existed in the past, but that the way society has evolved has also changed human behavior.

Is the emotional connection between two lovers deeper than the desire for sex? If not, then has it always been like that? If not, what has changed?

Is this just the clash of the idealized idea of love with reality? Or has there been a time when love was more like in the books?

Do you think that two people today could be kept apart for two years (like in the civil war examples) and still love each other?

[Guest]

Ah, I love it when people consider real life, messy situations by using neat, clean, fictional examples. Wonderful! Is it any surprise that real life doesn't live up to fairy tales? How much do you want to bet that when Shakespeare's lover left their wet towel on the floor, regardless of all that wonderful love he professed, he still lost his temper, screamed about mildew, and stormed outside for a smoke?

Listen. There is enough pressure on sexuals not to break up over sex... we really don't need more. Personally, I think you should break up with anyone who makes you unhappy, and if not having sex makes you unhappy, then break up! Damn. What's the benefit of remaining unhappy just so you can say "but look at my shiny principles".

I would also like to make the extremely obvious point that this works both ways. If Shakespearean love exists, then asexuals should be willing to have sex for their partners. Because, unless you and I are talking about two totally different Shakespeares, there was SEX ALL OVER THE PLACE IN SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS!!

On a final note, I highly, highly, highly doubt that all of your sexual friends said that no one has the ability to fall in love without sex. My guess is, they were saying that if one is in love, sex will be an integral part of that love. In any case, in real life it is very easy to go out and find a partner who you love AND who will have sex with you. It's not like just because you love someone, you'll never love anyone else... most adults have loved and lost many times. If you believe in The One and Fate, maybe I could understand, but otherwise, there is just no reason to stay in an unfulfilling relationship out of fear that you'll never fall in love again. I like to use the coffee example. My partner only drinks cold beverages, and that includes coffee. We have a great local coffeeshop nearby, but they don't make iced coffee... they pour hot coffee over ice. At this point it's drilled into my brain which coffeeshops do and don't have iced coffee, but when we first started dating, I would drive us to the wrong place every now and again. You know what her response was? "Hey, could we go to the other one, since it's close by anyway and they have what I want?". It's the same thing with relationships. If I'm an averagely attractive woman in a regular city, there are tons of people for me to fall in love with, and 99% of them are going to want to have sex with me. Why on earth would I pick the one person who won't? (I mean, obviously I did, but I don't think you can fault people if they go the other way with it).

** Romeo and Juliet did have sex, and they weren't OK with being apart. And, if I recall, sexual infidelity (or the threat of it) caused a whole empire to collapse in Othello. Just sayin'.

[Karl Viktor]

Ah, I love it when people consider real life, messy situations by using neat, clean, fictional examples. Wonderful! Is it any surprise that real life doesn't live up to fairy tales?

You didn't really read all of my post, did you? =P

I would suggest you go back and re-read it, cus most of your reply has nothing to do with the questions I posed in the OP.

[Guest]

Ah, I love it when people consider real life, messy situations by using neat, clean, fictional examples. Wonderful! Is it any surprise that real life doesn't live up to fairy tales?

You didn't really read all of my post, did you? =P

I would suggest you go back and re-read it, cus most of your reply has nothing to do with the questions I posed in the OP.

Good lord. Yes I read the whole thing... two quotes from the civil war, some questions about why love is different now...

Did you read my entire response, or only the first line? cuz most of your reply didn't address the answers I posted in the OP either. What do you want me to say, exactly? Your description of shakespearean love is weird considering the stuff that Shakespeare actually wrote, and whether or not the little women waiting back home were or were not banging some other guys is not something we'll ever be able to discover now... but my guess is, since nearly every able-bodied man was sent to war, they probably didn't have anyone else to bang. I really don't see how the circumstances of a civil war wife is at all similar to the circumstances of a modern day couple. At best it is comparable to a modern day couple where one partner is at war... and I think that a lot of women wait for their guys to come back from war, and vice versa. I've been in a long distance relationship before with no problem. The difference between dating someone who is going to grad school in another state and dating an asexual is that with the asexual, 1) nothing will ever change, and 2) not only are you not getting sex, the other person doesn't even want it, so there is no mutual pining.

I still stand by my statement that Shakespeare probably hated seeing wet towels on the floor.

EDIT: I went back and re-read your OP and mine, and I have to say... my first post was HELLA on point. ;)

[RageofAnath]

Uh, Romeo and Juliet only knew each other for like two weeks before they died.

Shakespearean love -- an exaggeration? Absolutely. Humans haven't changed that much since coming down from the trees, much less in a couple hundred years.

[Aimy Sidney]

I love you more than words can wield the matter, Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty - King Lear – Act 1, secene 1

So from what I've gathered over the years from sexual friends, they have a really hard time imagining love without sex. It seems that, in their view, sex isn't just one of many ways that romantic love can be expressed, but it is a completely vital ingredient, without which true love can not exist. I have pondered this a great deal, because when I learned that a lot of people think that way, it destroyed the idea that I had been tought ever since I was a child, namely that of Shakespearean love.

Basically what it means is that two people can not only connect on a deep emotional level (i.e. love) without sex, but that they can also maintain and deepen that connecion over time. This is the basic plot of many of Shakespeare's literary works, and in fact, a common theme in fictions of all kind. One of the most well-known examples of of this type of love is that of Romeo and Juliet, who are so incredibly passionate about each other, even when they are physically separated from each other for most of their lives.

Now you're probably thinking: How naive must I not be to have thought Romeo and Juliet was just an average couple? Of course sexual people want to have sex, that's why they are called sexual people.

Let's move on to some less figurative examples. I recently read the book 'for cause and comrades - why men fought in the civil war' by James M. McPherson. Quite early on it became clear to me that one of the major reasons many of the people volunteered, on both sides, was they thought that they had to go to war to defend their loved ones. Even after years in service, many of the soldiers and their wives still expressed their loves for one another through the letters they sent.

A sergeant in the 14th Indiana wrote to his wife in 1863, almost two years after he enlisted:

"I would give anything in my possession to be with you, but I am in the service of my country and I will serve it faithfully and do my duty and if I never see you more I will do nothing that will disgrace you or my children."

One Pennsylvania woman wrote to her husband in spring of 1864, over two years after her husband had enlisted:

"I awaken up at night and lay for hours wondering if I ever shall see my dear Pet again.... You are my all in this world and without you now my Pet I feel as though I could not live."

This phenomenon isn't limited just to the american civil war, it can be observed in distant times and places as well as under less extreme circumstances, where lovers are separated for lengthy periods of time.

Whether or not they would have wanted to express their love for one another through sex, if they could, isn't important, because if Shakespearean love does exist, then surely sexual people would be willing to make the sacrifice of not having sex, even when the barrier is not a physical one (geographical distance etc).

What I'm getting at here is in essence a number of quite philosophical ponderings regarding human nature.

We don't know if the Pennsylvania woman was cheating on her husband. Maybe it's just that people are more open about their need for sex today than earlier. That would imply it's society that has changed, not human behavior, and that Shakespearean love has in fact never existed.

Maybe people in previous times had a different sense of duty, and indeed of love itself, implying that Shakespearean love has existed in the past, but that the way society has evolved has also changed human behavior.

Is the emotional connection between two lovers deeper than the desire for sex? If not, then has it always been like that? If not, what has changed?

Is this just the clash of the idealized idea of love with reality? Or has there been a time when love was more like in the books?

Do you think that two people today could be kept apart and still love each other?

First off, I must admit, I find it very ironic that your opening quote is spoken by Goneril, whose love is shown to be not very faithful or true later in the play.

That said, I would also like to respond to Skullery Maid's comment that "people consider real life, messy situations by using neat, clean, fictional examples" by saying that, at least for Shakespeare, his characters and plays are rarely neat or clean (and are occasionally based, admittedly loosely, on historical fact). That is what makes Shakespeare's plays so great, they are incredibly complex, with countless possible interpretations. To run with the Romeo and Juliet example, Romeo's love is questionable because of his actions at the beginning of the play. He starts out not in love with Juliet, but with a girl named Rosaline, but then as soon as he sees Juliet, he completely forgets her in favor of his new passion. This raises the question that if his love for Rosaline was so fickle, and fleeting as soon as he saw something better, how do we know his love for Juliet is sincere? Juliet's love for Romeo is also questionable, as she may be merely entertaining his affections in order to escape from a family situation which is shown in the latter part of the play to be possibly abusive, as her father, who opens the play saying that Juliet must have a say in who she marries, to threatening to kick her out of the house if she does not consent to marry the man he has chosen for her. Furthermore, there is the ever present issue of R&J's youth, which could indicate that their story is more about the dangers of youthful passions than true love. All of that said, it is also possible, based on the text, to read it as a story about the power of love. It all depends on actors' and directors' interpretations. IMO, Shakespeare was intentionally vague and ambiguous in his plays, it makes them more interesting, and gives actors more freedom to take the same text and turn it into a new story each time.

And that's my long winded, probably uninteresting rant about Shakespeare.

On the subject of love, being a romantic asexual, I think, and certainly hope, that there can be love without sex. I can certainly hate someone without trying to kill them, or even wanting to kill them, or even wanting to get in a fight with them. Usually it just means I don't want anything to do with them. So it would make sense to me that the same logic applies to love. I can love someone without wanting to have sex with them, when I love someone it means I want to be with them pretty much of the time.

*just to be clear, I'm using love here consistently in the romantic sense.

[Bye Bye Birdy]

[The Great WTF]

Thank you for this. You saved me several paragraphs of ranting.

[Plethace]

Karl Victor, for bringing up Shakespeare. AT LAST.

I think you got this right : Maybe people in previous times had a different sense of duty.....

Is the emotional connection between two lovers deeper than the desire for sex?

If the emotional connection wasn't more important (for some people) then there would be no monogamous couples where one person is severely disabled. However, I think that it is not social dictate or religious indoctrination but a person's character that will define whether someone is even receptive to the idea of what you call "Shakespearean love".

If you're into MBTI for example then my answer would be : yes, two idealist personalities could definitely make that work without much trouble since they are already inclined towards romantic ideals and value words a great deal so love letters would prove no obstacle.

Other than that I think that encountering obstacles can also build up pleasant anticipation which in turn should be rather favorable to true love.

I think I'll leave the conclusion to the maestro himself :

SONNET 116

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering barque,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come:

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

[Karl Viktor]

@Skullery Maid

The point of my original post was the question whether sex is an expression of love or a neccessary ingredient of it. Further, there are some related questions like whether or not this has changed over time (the answer to which, will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the role of sex either is inherent and thus can't be changed, or that it's based on social and environmental factors).

To me it seems pretty clear that in Shakespeare's works, as in most fiction, it's the former - sex as an expression of love. I'm asking the question whether or not this is also true in real life, or if sexual people need sex in order to maintain a romantic relationship, which I have been lead to believe by talking to friends and generally examining contemporary society.

I'm posing this as a purely philosophical question - as a way to try and understand human nature.

To me, your first reply sounded more like dating advice than anything else, and the coffee metaphor went straight past me. I didn't get the relevance of the"wet towels" thing either to be honest.

@everyone

As many people have pointed out by now, romeo and juliet was clearly a bad example as it didn't carry across what I meant at all. So if anyone want to discuss the questions in my original pos, just ignore that part.

[Guest]

The point of my original post was the question whether sex is an expression of love or a neccessary ingredient of it.

Some will see it as one, some as the other, some as both, and some as neither. None of these answers is inherently better or "more true" than the other. Those who feel it's a necessary ingredient aren't wrong in feeling so, and they aren't wrong in abandoning 'ship over it if that subjective necessity keeps remaining unfulfilled.

As for the historical/duty argumentation - I personally feel that a 'ship that's held up only or mostly out of a feeling of duty isn't worth being held up at all. It's one of the big reasons why I'm very much anti-marriage. I'm of the "commit for a day, check next day for prolong/renew option" school - I like my freedom, and I can't stay in touch with feeling love for a partner if I don't thoroughly respect and protect both their freedom and my own, including our freedom to abandon 'ship at any time, for any reason that makes one feel it's necessary to do so. I know I deeply love my partner, and I feel no doubt that she feels the same way for me, so I see a reasonably high probability that we may well be together for a long, long number of years. But I don't know if we'll still be together next week. And that's just how it should be, because just by not being bound together, we're free to spend time with each other out of love and our own choice. :)

[RageofAnath]

In that case I'll skip your rambles and go straight to the questions.

Is the emotional connection between two lovers deeper than the desire for sex? If not, then has it always been like that? If not, what has changed?

Depends on the people. It can be, it can not be. Some people might just not care whether or not there is an emotional connection and some people might just not care whether or not there is sex.

I don't think you can generalize stuff like this.

Is this just the clash of the idealized idea of love with reality? Or has there been a time when love was more like in the books?

There has never been a time when live was more like in the books.

Do you think that two people today could be kept apart for two years (like in the civil war examples) and still love each other?

Yes.

[Karl Viktor]

@RageofAnath

While you are clearly strongly convinced of your opinions on the matter, to be able to express them without any doubts, it's gonna be hard to have a discussion unless you start giving reasons why you think the way you do. You say that it "depends on the people". Why does it depend on the people? What kind of factors makes some sexual people able to abstain from sex and some not?

"There has never been a time when live was more like in the books." - what makes you say that?

If I had just wanted people's opinions on things I'd have added a poll to the top of the original post.

I'm more interested in your arguments than your opinion, cus otherwise I wont learn anything

[Sally]

You say that it "depends on the people". Why does it depend on the people? What kind of factors makes some sexual people able to abstain from sex and some not?

Why wouldn't it depend on the people? Everyone's an individual. Are you like every single other person who shares your orientation?

[Karl Viktor]

Why wouldn't it depend on the people? Everyone's an individual. Are you like every single other person who shares your orientation?

Yes, people are individuals, but individuals aren't islands. I believe there are reasons behind why people behave the way they do, and that those reasons can be brought out and examined. That's what philosophy is and has always been about, trying to figure out what human nature is. Some may say it's a fruitless pursuit, and they are entitled to think that, but that's not me.

[Sally]

Why wouldn't it depend on the people? Everyone's an individual. Are you like every single other person who shares your orientation?

Yes, people are individuals, but individuals aren't islands. I believe there are reasons behind why people behave the way they do, and that those reasons can be brought out and examined. That's what philosophy is and has always been about, trying to figure out what human nature is. Some may say it's a fruitless pursuit, and they are entitled to think that, but that's not me.

Human nature is a very unexaminable phrase, especially when you're talking about something as individual as feelings about sexual activity. I'm a human; my individual nature is not to enjoy or desire sexual activity. That doesn't define "human nature". However you feel doesn't define human nature, either.

[Notte stellata]

The point of my original post was the question whether sex is an expression of love or a neccessary ingredient of it.

Some will see it as one, some as the other, some as both, and some as neither. None of these answers is inherently better or "more true" than the other. Those who feel it's a necessary ingredient aren't wrong in feeling so, and they aren't wrong in abandoning 'ship over it if that subjective necessity keeps remaining unfulfilled.

As for the historical/duty argumentation - I personally feel that a 'ship that's held up only or mostly out of a feeling of duty isn't worth being held up at all. It's one of the big reasons why I'm very much anti-marriage. I'm of the "commit for a day, check next day for prolong/renew option" school - I like my freedom, and I can't stay in touch with feeling love for a partner if I don't thoroughly respect and protect both their freedom and my own, including our freedom to abandon 'ship at any time, for any reason that makes one feel it's necessary to do so. I know I deeply love my partner, and I feel no doubt that she feels the same way for me, so I see a reasonably high probability that we may well be together for a long, long number of years. But I don't know if we'll still be together next week. And that's just how it should be, because just by not being bound together, we're free to spend time with each other out of love and our own choice. :)

I wish there was a "like" button again. :cake:

[Karl Viktor]

Human nature is a very unexaminable phrase, especially when you're talking about something as individual as feelings about sexual activity. I'm a human; my individual nature is not to enjoy or desire sexual activity. That doesn't define "human nature". However you feel doesn't define human nature, either.

Yes, but when piecing together lots of little bits of information based on many different people's behaviour, one can begin to see certain patterns emerging

@everyone

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, i.e. independently of the influence of culture.

The questions of what these characteristics are, what causes them, and how fixed human nature is, are amongst the oldest and most important questions in western philosophy.

courtesy of wikipedia.

I'm not after pinning down the (a)sexuality of any one person, I'm after a discussion about general lines of reasoning and behavioural patterns.

Generalizations, by definition, don't apply to everyone, but that doesn't mean they are pointless.

[Qutenkuddly]

That said, I would also like to respond to Skullery Maid's comment that "people consider real life, messy situations by using neat, clean, fictional examples" by saying that, at least for Shakespeare, his characters and plays are rarely neat or clean (and are occasionally based, admittedly loosely, on historical fact). That is what makes Shakespeare's plays so great, they are incredibly complex, with countless possible interpretations. To run with the Romeo and Juliet example, Romeo's love is questionable because of his actions at the beginning of the play. He starts out not in love with Juliet, but with a girl named Rosaline, but then as soon as he sees Juliet, he completely forgets her in favor of his new passion. This raises the question that if his love for Rosaline was so fickle, and fleeting as soon as he saw something better, how do we know his love for Juliet is sincere? Juliet's love for Romeo is also questionable, as she may be merely entertaining his affections in order to escape from a family situation which is shown in the latter part of the play to be possibly abusive, as her father, who opens the play saying that Juliet must have a say in who she marries, to threatening to kick her out of the house if she does not consent to marry the man he has chosen for her. Furthermore, there is the ever present issue of R&J's youth, which could indicate that their story is more about the dangers of youthful passions than true love. All of that said, it is also possible, based on the text, to read it as a story about the power of love. It all depends on actors' and directors' interpretations. IMO, Shakespeare was intentionally vague and ambiguous in his plays, it makes them more interesting, and gives actors more freedom to take the same text and turn it into a new story each time.

And that's my long winded, probably uninteresting rant about Shakespeare.

Off topic: having taught lessons on Romeo and Juliet that involved demonstrating just how shallow Romeo is (I mean, come on, we first see him moaning about how he can't even buy his way into Rosalind's pants), I completely agree with your points regarding both this play, and the complication of romantic relationships in many of Shakespeare's plays.

Even further off topic is the journal entry I wrote some years ago concerning Romeo's attraction to Juliet, in the spoiler below:

Romeo was a shallow git...

As an English teacher in a secondary school, I wind up going through a LOT of Shakespeare, especially for SAT and coursework preparation. In doing so, I find all sorts of interesting little side thoughts that I just really have to express.

I'll start with Romeo from Romeo and Juliet. I know most of you realize that Shakespeare deliberately made Romeo's early feelings for Juliet questionable, in that it seems he was purely attracted by her beauty at the Capulet Ball (driving out any thought of Rosalyn, whom he believed he loved for the same reason). However, there are a few choice bits of Act 1 Scene 1 which really show Romeo to be truly shallow. Most of these show up in the conversation where Benvolio has a talk with Romeo in order to find out why the latter has shut himself away in misery. It is revealed that Romeo is pining for Rosalyn, the most beautiful woman he has seen. Romeo has this to say about his attempts at courting her:

Well, in that hit you miss. She'll not be hit

With Cupid's arrow. She hath Dian's wit.

And, in strong proof of chastity well armed

From love's weak childish bow, she lives uncharmed.

She will not stay the siege of loving terms,

Nor bide th' encounter of assailing eyes,

Nor ope her lap to saint-seducing gold.

Am I alone in thinking that Romeo is whining because he can't even PAY to get into Rosalyn's pants?

When Romeo first sees Juliet at the Capulet's Ball, he becomes immediately enamored, forgetting completely about Rosalyn. His first comments about Juliet are entirely about her beauty and how it outshines any he has ever witnessed.

When they first begin to speak, things get a little interesting. Their dialogue takes the form of a sonnet. Many would argue that, as the sonnet was the ultimate romantic thing to do, that this signifies the beginning of "true love" between Romeo and Juliet, as an Elizabethan audience would recognize it as such. However, I would argue that Shakespeare used it for the opposite effect. Afterall, everyone in his audience would have known that it was the thing for a gentleman to write to show deepest admiration. In otherwords, it was a fancy pickup line. This idea is further heightened by the skill with which Romeo lays it on to win a kiss from Juliet. Ultimately, she comments "You kiss by the book," indicating that, not only is Romeo skillful with his lines, but he's a pro at kissing. In otherwords, Romeo is a Shakespearan "playah". (Sorry, I couldn't resist that pun...)

It becomes very clear that Romeo feels very strongly for Juliet as the end of the play approaches. However, is it love? If it is, what is he really in love with? Many mentions are made of Juliet's beauty, but what else? Yes, Romeo proves that he is devoted, but is he still as shallow as he was at the beginning of the play? I wager he is.

Anybody else have an opinion on this?

PS: The title for this post appeared in my TA's notes. *chuckle*

[RageofAnath]

I stated a bit more clearly higher up which had been glossed over so I felt no reason to repeat:

"Shakespearean love -- an exaggeration? Absolutely. Humans haven't changed that much since coming down from the trees, much less in a couple hundred years."

I had no intention of writing paragraphs unless prompted so here we go I guess.

While you are clearly strongly convinced of your opinions on the matter, to be able to express them without any doubts, it's gonna be hard to have a discussion unless you start giving reasons why you think the way you do. You say that it "depends on the people". Why does it depend on the people? What kind of factors makes some sexual people able to abstain from sex and some not?

I do not believe that any of these topics can be distilled into one or even two easy answers. Romance doesn't have jut one definition. People look to get different things out of a relationship. Some people really just want sex and don't care if their partner even has a personality, and others want a reasonable mix of both, while others such as aces just don't value sex that highly. This really doesn't have much to do with sex itself though, because its just another scale people consider such as "Will my mate's religion/political beliefs/music tastes/sport fandom/love of video games/interest in obscure hobbies/desire to have kids/favorite color align with my own?" The reason people value these things is a combination of irrationality and practicality, and variety and randomness still rule the day. The reasons are as varied as the people.

I really don't know what more it is possible to add to this, since most of these factors are internal and personal. Sure there is some pressure from society as to how much people should or should not value these different topics, but at the end of the day its up to the PEOPLE to determine where their values lie.

"There has never been a time when live was more like in the books." - what makes you say that?

As I stated above, humans haven't changed much over the course of history. Anthropological and archeological discoveries uncover ancient people had values and lives very similar to our own. Concepts and values go in and out of fashion. We may have more technology than the ancient Sumerians (for example) but were our personal values and day to day life really that different? No, not really.

"The books" have always been fiction. Idealized impressions of an imperfect world, an authors' vision of what should be, or what society at the time values most highly -- regardless of what actually exists. Documents such as personal letters and journals from Shakespeare's time seem to indicate that people were still just people, just as they are today, and were in ancient Persia, Greece, China, and through the Roman Empire and American Civil War.

It is fallacy to imagine a golden era at all. No such time ever existed... in any form. People have always valued sex, people have always loved each other, people have always been unfaithful, and people have always been celibate by choice or waited loyally for husbands to return from war.

[Plethace]

"@everyone

As many people have pointed out by now, romeo and juliet was clearly a bad example as it didn't carry across what I meant at all. So if anyone want to discuss the questions in my original pos, just ignore that part."

The frustration !

Karl Viktor, why issue a gag order when you could have had grad school research on a silver platter used in your defense ?

[Karl Viktor]

I do not believe that any of these topics can be distilled into one or even two easy answers. Romance doesn't have jut one definition. People look to get different things out of a relationship. Some people really just want sex and don't care if their partner even has a personality, and others want a reasonable mix of both, while others such as aces just don't value sex that highly. This really doesn't have much to do with sex itself though, because its just another scale people consider such as "Will my mate's religion/political beliefs/music tastes/sport fandom/love of video games/interest in obscure hobbies/desire to have kids/favorite color align with my own?" The reason people value these things is a combination of irrationality and practicality, and variety and randomness still rule the day. The reasons are as varied as the people.

I really don't know what more it is possible to add to this, since most of these factors are internal and personal. Sure there is some pressure from society as to how much people should or should not value these different topics, but at the end of the day its up to the PEOPLE to determine where their values lie.

This is a much more satisfactory answer, thank you for that. However, if it's in a persons power to freely choose what values he adheres to, does that mean you would hold a 17th century slave owner equally morally responsible for keeping slaves as you would someone who did the same today?

As I stated above, humans haven't changed much over the course of history. Anthropological and archeological discoveries uncover ancient people had values and lives very similar to our own. Concepts and values go in and out of fashion. We may have more technology than the ancient Sumerians (for example) but were our personal values and day to day life really that different? No, not really.

and what does a human being consist of, more than flesh and blood, and a collection of concepts and values?

To me this is the same as saying "we have always been the same, except for everything we have ever believed in"

Isn't a 3rd century BC Greek, who has no moral qualms over keeping slaves or beating his wife and children when he thinks they need to be disciplined, who thinks anyone that isn't greek is inherently inferior and has no right to life, a radically different man than you or me?

I would argue that humanity, as a collection of individuals over time, has gone through major and often irreversible changes since the dawn of civilization, that personal values are a reflection of the society you belong to, just as society is a reflection of all the personal values of the people in it.

It is fallacy to imagine a golden era at all. No such time ever existed... in any form. People have always valued sex, people have always loved each other, people have always been unfaithful, and people have always been celibate by choice or waited loyally for husbands to return from war.

There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between a "golden age fallacy" and fatalistic cynicism. Isn't there the possibility that reality lies somewhere between "nothing changes, ever", which is what I read from your reply, and total freedom from restraints?

[Karl Viktor]

The frustration !

Karl Viktor, why issue a gag order when you could have had grad school research on a silver platter used in your defense ?

Not gagging anyone, but if you want to discuss shakespeare then *please* do it somewhere else cus I have absolutely zero interest in it (as I'm sure you noticed from my incredibly bad example).

It's not why I started this thread, and I really have a genuine interest in discussing this topic (not going so well yet, but I'm patient) and learning what other people think about it, that's why I retracted that part so quickly.

I guess the title might be somewhat misleading, but I still think that it's valid, despite my stupid example.

[Plethace]

Karl Viktor, your thread - your rules, man.

I was going to point out the courage in both Romeo and Juliet to clarify that your example was not bad at all.

I apologize for assuming you needed my help in defending your ideas.

But back to your OP. Maybe soldiers who are being deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan would be a more suitable example.

I've heard them speak of their service as a means to ensure the freedom and security of their loved ones at home.

Often enough they don't get to see their wives and children for extended periods of time, yet when they come back,

sometimes severely wounded, their wives still have their back.

[RageofAnath]

I'm not really sure how you were able to radicalize what I said so much. I made the statement that humans as a species have behaved consistently over time, while giving relative autonomy to individuals. I don't believe that humans have unlimited free will for biological reasons, but I do believe they can make many value decisions for themselves based on their personal opinions even if they run contrary to the current trends in society.

This is a much more satisfactory answer, thank you for that. However, if it's in a persons power to freely choose what values he adheres to, does that mean you would hold a 17th century slave owner equally morally responsible for keeping slaves as you would someone who did the same today?

For one thing, you can't class all slave owners together in terms of morals, just as you can't class all CEOs and upper management of companies together today. There were slave owners who treated their slaves with great cruelty and injustice, and there were slave owners who were decent people and allowed their slaves a great deal more comfort and humanity. The fact that people are not literally slaves through the Industrial Revolution doesn't change the fact that many workers were treated incredibly unjustly and with great cruelty and coldness by some business owners, and that these practices of abuse and low pay continue to the present day. What is the difference between keeping slaves and forcing workers to work inhuman hours at less than living wage with meager to no benefits? So no, I wouldn't hold them morally responsible for just owning slaves, I'd hold them morally responsible for how they treated the human beings they were charged with caring for.

I don't believe you can use "slavery" as your umbrella example just as you can't use "romance", because there is no way to point to one or two examples and not stereotype excessively or miss many crucial details and differences. It will also characterize times of history improperly so that the conclusions are not accurate by any measure.

Isn't a 3rd century BC Greek, who has no moral qualms over keeping slaves or beating his wife and children when he thinks they need to be disciplined, who thinks anyone that isn't greek is inherently inferior and has no right to life, a radically different man than you or me?

I would argue that humanity, as a collection of individuals over time, has gone through major and often irreversible changes since the dawn of civilization, that personal values are a reflection of the society you belong to, just as society is a reflection of all the personal values of the people in it.

The 300BCE Greek archetype you lined up still exists. Have you not seen that people who abuse their workers and family still exist? That radical nationalism still exists? But it is also fallacy to assume that even most Greeks in 300BCE were like that, especially when we can still read their literature and political speeches today and find that it still reflects common human values, and when we can still find their philosophy and rhetoric relevant and touching.

I don't believe those changes are irreversible. I see no reason not to expect that the growth we have made in human rights and such couldn't vanish in 200 years if humanity is plunged into chaos or extreme war. There is no reason slavery couldn't come back into vogue, or literal Polytheism, or corrupt monarchies, or the abandonment of the scientific method. There is no reason we couldn't enter a time where 95% of the worlds population is again illiterate and the great libraries and museums fall into ruin. The collapse of the Roman Empire led to a period such as that, and there's no reason to assume that our current globalization efforts could't also fall into ruin, leading to a reduction of many of the values we hold dear today.

You can see this same cyclical trend on a smaller scale in politics even now, as we regulate banks and companies, deregulate them, regulate them again, as we legalize birth control and abortions, add restrictions, remove restrictions, and work to illegalize again, as we eliminate slavery only to allow the working class to suffer under the whip with no rights, until the workers organize into unions, as the unions work to give rights to the workers, until the unions are disbanded and disempowered, until the workers rights slowly disappear, until they realize this and try to organize again... Where are these irreversible changes?

There is a whole spectrum of possibilities between a "golden age fallacy" and fatalistic cynicism. Isn't there the possibility that reality lies somewhere between "nothing changes, ever", which is what I read from your reply, and total freedom from restraints?

And yet, despite all of this, I am trying to strike this balance. Values come in and out of vogue, but when everything is broken down, humans care about the same things they have when they laid the first bricks of cities -- families, love, and loyalty, finances and stability, personal freedom and protection from other humans. But there is great individual diversity within those basic wants.

and what does a human being consist of, more than flesh and blood, and a collection of concepts and values?

To me this is the same as saying "we have always been the same, except for everything we have ever believed in"

I don't believe a human being consists of anything more than their physical form and the abstract values that arise from the interworkings of their neurons. We have always been the same, INCLUDING everything we have ever believed in. If you transplanted an infant at birth from the warring tribes of the Huns into a modern day Mongolia, he or she would be modern in all respects, and vice versa.

[The Great WTF]

Is the emotional connection between two lovers deeper than the desire for sex? If not, then has it always been like that? If not, what has changed?

You can't lump all of humanity together like that. It's just not that simple. We've had discussions about this all over the Relationships and Sexual Allies forum. For some it is. For others it is not. Some people consider sex a deal breaker and some are fine finding ways to circumvent their desire for it, or they have no desire at all. Some people only want sex with the one they love and thus are willing to wait long periods of time for it and others just want sex and don't care who they get it from.

Yes, it has always been like this. What has changed is society's acceptance of sex as a whole as well as the way marriages are handled. There is a tendency among people to romanticize the past, to look at the eras when marriages were for life and devotion to one's partner was supposed to be absolute and wish we still had that. In reality, though, there is a very dark side to that era. Marriages were for life... no matter what. Beaten wives were scorned if they dared leave their husband. A husband was allowed to rape his wife if he wanted sex and no one would tell him he was wrong. True, not all relationships were like this, just as not all women were treated as property by their fathers, but both happened. Devotion to one's partner WAS supposed to be absolute... but that didn't stop men from visiting prostitutes on a regular basis. Syphilis was hilariously common in the 188 and 1900s, even dating as far back as Shakespeare's time. Affairs still happened, but they were harder to prove and were kept much quieter back then.

As for soliders on the battlefield and their wives back home? I promise you, affairs happened then, too. No, we don't write letters like that any more. Letter writing has gone out the window in most places, as has the flowery way of writing that was customary during the Civil and earlier wars, and most soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have email and Skype and other instant forms of communication, very often leading to very different kinds of exchanges. I'm sure those same concepts still exist, couples going on and on about how much they miss each other, but times have changed and the way we communicate has affected that greatly.

Is this just the clash of the idealized idea of love with reality? Or has there been a time when love was more like in the books?

I doubt love was ever or will every be like it is portrayed in fiction. Many, many works of fiction are so adored because the love portrayed in them is idyllic and pure, nothing at all like the real world where couples have to face the ravages of time, spouses that change after marriage, or love that drifts apart. Especially when it comes to romance, fiction is very often used as a form of escapism. Not everyone does this, of course, but it is a common trend.

I could go into a very long-winded analysis of writing, character development, and how romance tends to lead to under-developed characters and a bad case of "step-into-the character" here, but I'd really rather not.

Do you think that two people today could be kept apart for two years (like in the civil war examples) and still love each other?

Of course. Doesn't mean it will always happen, but they can, just like I really doubt every Civil War wife was still madly in love with their husband after years apart.

I don't think the value of love has lessened, but I do think the way it's viewed and executed has changed, just like how much marriage has changed. Marriage was a requirement in the past and people were expected to marry young. Nowadays, we're allowed to take our time and be a little more picky because marriage isn't nearly as vital to life... well, for the most part. I think there's always going to be that annoying relative or coworker that asks you why you're not married and having kids at 22. -_-

[Guest]

** claps for The Great WTF **

[MadRat]

Is this just the clash of the idealized idea of love with reality?

Yes.