Love is not the answer.
Lust is.
Romance is a vicious cycle of misunderstanding.
The neural mechanisms of romantic love are not as evolved.
(Monogamous attachment in rats is rare;
the few doting species perish quickly.)
These chemicals are works in progress.
Wet paint.
Wet blood that demands a scab, scar,
new flesh.
Lust is linear progression, progress.
It builds; it plateaus, and like mountains forged in tectonic perfection, it peaks.
Climax. End. La petit mort. Life and death.
Simplicity.
Romantic love is the jumbled industrial slew of cities—
intriguing, fluorescent,
empty, constructed, packaged.
Urbane, unending, hard on the lungs.
Increases cortisol levels.
Irrevocably connected to arbitrary social entanglements.
“I can’t, I have a boyfriend.”
“We’re in a committed relationship.”
“I wish he bought me more jewelry.”
Traps.
Lust alone has pragmatic meaning.
Romantic love is meta-cognition. Intelligence to the level of idiocy.
Now friendship and fetishes—
those are another story…
--------------------------------------
This is not meant to be a poem, but more of a discussion. I am interested in your opinions.
"Georgie said romantic love is flat / only for people with no real ambition in their life" --a ridiculously attractive man
ReplyDeleteThis was an incredibly entertaining distraction from my homework. Very well-written (I love the way you phrase things), though I'm not exactly sure how to respond...
ReplyDelete*I made the opposite connotation from how it should sound, read: "/ it's only..."
ReplyDeleteI disagree (shocker).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that the "emotions" (that's not quite the right word, but I don't know what would work better) of love and lust are two heads of the same coin; it impossible to possess one without the other.
Love without physical sensuality is hollow. The bible says that "faith without works is dead." I don't think I need to make the parallel much more explicit. Humans cannot live without sexuality; they must either embrace it or sublimate it. For a truly healthy relationship, it must be embraced and celebrated.
Lust without love can exist; it is just hollow. Lust without love can be sated all on one's own (again, don't think I need to be much more explicit). I won't condone satisfying lust in a non-emotional context, but neither can I condemn it. Just as we must eat and breathe, we must be human. Lust alone... meaningless. Lust devoid of any emotion is mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and existentially unfulfulling. To summarize my argument: lust and love are two sides of a coin we can never fully understand. They must meet and coexist; we cannot meet fulfillment in any other way.
I actually only halfway agree. Romantic love for its own sake is complicating and useless, but a form of love can be subservient to (and a result of) fulfillment of lust. What's important is to keep from subjugating those impulses (and also from becoming needlessly attached), because you can't control chemical reactions very far anyway--and emotions are, after all, a chemical phenomenon just like the rest of the mind.
ReplyDeleteI think I am critiquing monogamy more than romance itself, but it is impossible for most Westerners to divorce romance and emotion from commitment and monogamy. GEORGIE FRUIT WILL ALWAYS WIN, Cameron :D
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you Swati :) I really really really like all the poems you have recently posted.
I saw a romantic comedy called No Strings Attached last night, totally related (although they get the wrong conclusion).
ReplyDeletePersonally I have a history of trouble in separating the two in my head, but the difference is pretty clear to me and it's getting easier with time. Also it sucks when you accidentally let one slip into the other without wanting to, just saying.
Important note: POLYAMORY!! recognizes multiple "love" relationships as well as different levels or forms of them.