Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Intellectuals think about Love and Sex too don't they?!?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intellectuals think about Love and Sex too don't they?!?

    This forum said it is appropriate for other "interesting topics."
    Well, you intellectuals, there's all this talk about politics and such which is certainly related to to the complexity found in Michael's stories. Why isn't there talk about love, sex, or romance? Those things are found in the stories too are they not? Surely some of us on here are "normal, well-adjusted enough, and mature enough" to know something of those things, eh?

    I recently came to terms with the fact that a lady I dated a couple of times is no longer interested in me. Subsequently, I wrote a long letter offering my thoughts and feelings. Here is an excerpt...

    I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm not right for you. The two dates we had were good-- perhaps you don't recall well enough, and/ or there's something about you, I am guessing an internal set of criteria you have-- that may or may not be entirely conscious-- that you are using as a "mate detector."
    Whatever "it" is, I think that it hinders you from finding a mate. "It" is the reason a very beautiful and nice lady like yourself has not found the wonderful, monogomous relationship that most of us seek. Normally, a woman like you should have ease with finding someone. It is clear to me that there is a lot to you, more than meets the eye, but then that's one of the reasons I like you as well. I am not only after good looks, although admittedly that is one of the first things I want, but Iآ need some kind of complexity in her personality-- not to mention a resonable amount of intelligence.
    You once told me "most men are not worthy of a relationship" or something very close to that. For you, yes that may well be a true statement. But in general, no, I do not believe that to be true. A lot of men are not "evolved" I believe-- typically they are what they are historically, which in essence is different from a woman. Obvious differences: ie. interested in sports vs. shopping; sex as physical gratification vs. emotional bonding; more prone to violence vs. passivity; and so on-- but that's why we are different sexes. And indeed there are matches between men and women in those interests/ characteristics. In my opinion, though, a more "evolved" man has his masculine traits, but his intelligent brain allows him a greater understanding of things which includes "how women are" and "what women want" and so can give women what they need which includes making the necessary compromises, such that a long term relationship can flourish. The less a man is cognizent of such things will result in dysfunction in the relationship. Actually it is often hard to make generalizations of men and women. That's the mistake most people make when making judgements. It's more about the individual. You need to figure out the characteristics of the individual. We are all humans, and we are complex creatures, our sex, and the factors that determine that are just part of the big whole. Ok, I'm starting to sound like what my favorite author will call "barmy." I'm going off the track I want to stay on, so I stop here on that stuff.

    Anyone have comments? Questions? Can you offer your philosophies on relationships, dating, love, or romance? (This might be interesting. :) ...

  • #2
    If you haven't got an answer yet it is because we're busy doing IT and will think and talk about it later, aaaah!

    Comment


    • #3
      Just what I was waiting for! thanks!

      Comment


      • #4
        'bout to procede to the shower, Matey, be a little patient.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hullo!

          I'm new here, but you did invite comments...

          Relating to the whole gender-based "battle of the sexes" thing, I recently read a quote from a feminist writer to the effect that Women's Liberation was concerned with the liberation of the masculine in women and the feminine in men. Personally I'm all for that, since many aspects of gender identity aren't exactly genetic.

          I mean, to say sport is only of interest to men is true to some extent, but perhaps if sportsWOMEN were given the same status and funding as sportsMEN, that might change. Equally if men were put under the same pressure to look their best at all times (regardless of personal discomfort), we might take a little more care over the clothes we buy too.

          Er... If it wasn't so late at night, I might rant on and on about this, but this is only my third post and I'll be damned if I'm letting all the skeletons out of my closet just yet.

          But one of the things I enjoy about the Moorocok I've read is how strong the female characters are. This is an area where science fiction and fantasy can (if the writers choose) help to correct centuries of gender-related propaganda... the same goes for issues of race, ethnicicty and culture, but that isn't what this thread is about. I suppose 'Buffy' would be the best example of this, but also the work of Lois McMaster Bujold (did I get those in the right order?)

          My personal hope for any relationship would be to meet the other person halfway... sometimes they'll be dominant and assertive, sometimes I'll be the shoulder to cry on. Sometimes they'll want to "talk about it", sometimes they'll just want to slam doors and be brought chcocolate. It's my version of duality. I work on the assumption that most people are a constantly shifting balance of contradictory forces (I like shopping and crying at Capra, but I also love Slipknot and Tarantino).

          I remember a joke about a couple being brought together by a mutual interest in not being alone, but that seems a little too cynical. Any relationship should only be pursued if those involved are learning and growing as participants in that relationship. Evolution and all that.

          Tired now, sorry if that was gibberish.

          D...
          "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

          Comment


          • #6
            Wow, don't know what to say on this topic. Jerico has already heard from me on this subject. I have always had some girl in my life wanting to get serious with me. Sometimes that's good and sometimes not. Most of the trouble I've been in has been over some girl!

            I'm a happily married man with three kids. I have been married for about 12 years. It has not been easy to reach this state, my wife and I have had our ups and downs (we were split up for about a year and a half - our two oldest kids had 2 homes). But now we are truly best friends and had a baby girl just 2 years ago. We love and trust each other completely, not as man and wife, but as fellow human beings, as friends and companions. She understands me - my eccentricities, my goofiness, my interests, my beliefs. And I understand her as well.

            I guess it has always been my way to be myself. Most girls I met liked the fact that I wasn't trying hard to impress them - I wasn't using 'cheesy' lines in clubs, I wasn't offering to buy them drinks, I was just treating them with the respect I would give any person I met. I was actually interested in them as fellow human beings I was coming in contact with. I wouldn't hide the fact that I may be attracted to them, but I wouldn't let that cloud our conversation. I am attracted to many things but, I am not interested in making love to them (well, maybe a Ferrari F50, ouch ).

            I just think many guys out there are so focused on getting the girl, that they lose sight of the fact that they are meeting a person. It sounds so corny, I know, but it seems to work for me. I tell women who I really am, I treat them like someone I want to talk to. If they want to talk to me that's good and if they don't, that's ok too - no offense taken. Many girls I have met seem to like a guy with a quiet kind of confidence, not running around trying to impress. And smile alot - at everyone, not just girls. They like a happy face :D. Everywhere you look, there are girls looking too. You just have to reach out to that fellow human being.


            ps - Whether you are trying to find love with the opposite sex or same sex, this applies. I was just basing my statement on my own experience. No offense I hope. Homosexual or heterosexual, we are all the same (in my opinion)

            We are all looking for love it seems - an understanding of another, an understanding of life.
            When they had advanced together to meet on common
            ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
            and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
            each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
            mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
            killing, and the ground ran with blood.

            Homer, The Illiad

            Comment


            • #7
              And If none of this works... Try buying an expensive sports car (not a Ferrari F50 or you might have problems with VonWeiner). :lol:

              No, sorry for that. I think that your letter Jerico is very good, a very reasonable on. But girls (trying hard not to generalize) want romance, not philosophy. Sometimes to have a perfect match is not enough (and sometimes the opposite is).

              Forget her, there's others out there... Be happy!
              \\

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lordmarioh
                And If none of this works... Try buying an expensive sports car (not a Ferrari F50 or you might have problems with VonWeiner). :lol:

                No, sorry for that. I think that your letter Jerico is very good, a very reasonable on. But girls (trying hard not to generalize) want romance, not philosophy. Sometimes to have a perfect match is not enough (and sometimes the opposite is).

                Forget her, there's others out there... Be happy!
                Well, this may be true of some 'girls'- the interest in a flash car and romance over philosophy. I doubt they would make much of a companion though! But thankfully, many women have far more sense, and look more for an individual as described by VonWeiner.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by VonWeiner
                  I just think many guys out there are so focused on getting the girl, that they lose sight of the fact that they are meeting a person. It sounds so corny, I know, but it seems to work for me.
                  I agree. It is very easy to fall into the trap of casting other people into roles which suit your own view of the world. This is a fault of both the “romantic” and the “hedonist”. As a younger man I saw myself as a tragic romantic, constantly searching for True Love. I would fall madly in love with women, without every really getting to know them as people. To some extent the individual women weren’t as important as the feelings they inspired in me, and the (mostly awful) poetry I was driven to write in their honour. I also wrote a number of “love notes”, which I now believe are symptomatic of a tendency to deny the reality of a flesh and blood relationship. If you simply observe the object of your affection from afar (either physical distance or otherwise), and dash off poetic declarations of devotion without ever being able to look that person in the eye and ask them to go for a curry, then you’re simply living in a fantasy world. There’s no harm in that I suppose, but it can prove unsatisfactory in the long-run.

                  I think this is captured perfectly in Dancers at the End of Time. All of the dancers have assigned themselves roles to play, despite the ultimate freedom of expression supposedly available. Mongrove chooses to be tormented, thus he must cast all of the other dancers as his tormentors. Cristia chooses to be pleasured, thus she must cast all of the other dancers as playmates. There is a certain amount of agreement between the dancers over their roles and responsibilities, so they tend to collaborate on a shared fantasy. The wrinkle comes when Amelia (one of the few “real” people in existence at the End of Time) refuses to play the part that Jherek wishes her to play. She repeatedly rebuffs his attempts to woo her, because she simply has no wish to be wooed. Her situation is complicated by a previous/current commitment. She is not free to be moulded and manipulated, no matter how many dancers take a hand in her fate. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that Jherek is incapable of “loving” Amelia because he really has no idea what the word means anymore than he knows what a “water closet” is. He is simply attracted by the opportunity to resurrect long-dead courtship rituals. A true “marriage” can only be arranged once the two have come to understand each other as human beings, and accepted the faults and baggage that are an unavoidable part of any genuine desire to share another person’s life and fate.

                  I’ve never had any experience of “love at first sight” myself, but I imagine that (as with most worthwhile pursuits) even this would still require a vast quantity of perspiration to follow the initial, fleeting inspiration.

                  I don’t believe you can *make* someone love you, no matter how passionately or eloquently you state your case. From my limited experience of being on the receiving end of a declaration of love, I can’t say that “rejecting” someone is any more enjoyable than being “rejected”, and I’m not entirely sure that the “rejected” can ever really understand or agree with the reasons behind their “rejection”... compatibility in itself simply isn’t enough to justify the leap of faith involved. Of course, I’ve no doubt that compromise is the key to an easy life, but if where is the fun in an “easy” life?

                  I don’t mean this to sound as a personal attack of any sort... the real source and target of my accusations is a younger version of myself I’m attempting to shake off. That’s why I’m rather hoping other, wiser souls will weigh in and give me some alternative opinions to chew over. Anyone?

                  D...

                  PS. Another argument against “love notes” has just occurred to me... the written word is often an unreliable representation of the writer responsible. For instance, I am glad to say I have never used the word “thus” in everyday conversation, and hopefully never will.
                  "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Anh... well... Me!

                    I am the younger version of yourself! I know this because (in a much lower level) I was already getting to your conclusions. The only problems is the transition between this two visions.
                    \\

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DeeCrowSeer
                      Originally posted by VonWeiner
                      I just think many guys out there are so focused on getting the girl, that they lose sight of the fact that they are meeting a person. It sounds so corny, I know, but it seems to work for me.
                      I agree. It is very easy to fall into the trap of casting other people into roles which suit your own view of the world. ... (shortened)

                      I think this is captured perfectly in Dancers at the End of Time. All of the dancers have assigned themselves roles to play, despite the ultimate freedom of expression supposedly available. Mongrove chooses to be tormented, thus he must cast all of the other dancers as his tormentors. Cristia chooses to be pleasured, thus she must cast all of the other dancers as playmates. There is a certain amount of agreement between the dancers over their roles and responsibilities, so they tend to collaborate on a shared fantasy. The wrinkle comes when Amelia (one of the few “real� people in existence at the End of Time) refuses to play the part that Jherek wishes her to play. She repeatedly rebuffs his attempts to woo her, because she simply has no wish to be wooed. Her situation is complicated by a previous/current commitment. She is not free to be moulded and manipulated, no matter how many dancers take a hand in her fate. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that Jherek is incapable of “loving� Amelia because he really has no idea what the word means anymore than he knows what a “water closet� is. He is simply attracted by the opportunity to resurrect long-dead courtship rituals. A true “marriage� can only be arranged once the two have come to understand each other as human beings, and accepted the faults and baggage that are an unavoidable part of any genuine desire to share another person’s life and fate.
                      (shortened)
                      DeeCrowSeer, I think I've never seen a better and more sensitive description of the magic that's in "Dancers at the End of Time".
                      This forum needs more of you.
                      Google ergo sum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think DeeCrowSeer hit the nail right on the head.

                        This idea of "romantic love" is a fantasy. In my opinion, people will never live up to your expectations. I was the same way when I was young, but two marriages later I am not - thankfully. I have had my heart broken so many times (whaa, whaa :lol: ). I always had expectations that were beyond anyone's ability fulfill.

                        Some people will say they love you, then a week later, they don't. Sometimes you will be convinced of the feelings you have, then you change. Some people you "go out" with will act like it is great and say they look forward to the next date, only to be never heard from again.

                        What does it mean? Nothing. To me, the hopelessly cynical, it means humans in general cannot be trusted. How did Machiavelli put it:

                        Originally posted by Machiavelli
                        For one can generally say this about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for thier good they are completely yours, offering you their blood, their property, their lives and their sons, when danger is far away; but when it comes nearer to you they turn away.
                        I know this is a bleak veiw. I trust certain people to a point. But no further. Anything is possible. Even my wife, who I know loves me, is capable of hurting me. I used to have a veiw of love like that poem by Poe: Annabelle Lee

                        "we loved with a love that was more than love..."

                        Or like one of my favorite movies The Princess Bride. Wesley and Buttercup had that love we idolize. But this love exists in fairy tales and poems. Real people can't love like that. If you accept it, you will be much happier. When people don't fulfill your expectations, you may tend to resent them. You may get angry with them or yourself and think, "What's wrong with them? What's wrong with me?"

                        Nothing. You are human. You are not perfect. No one is. The girl you described above Jerico, may have decided for reasons that have nothing to do with you that she didn't want (or couldn't) continue seeing you.

                        People are strange, who can guess what one thinks? It is difficult to know what motivates a person to do anything. It is hard to understand what motivates ourselves. And who knows you better than yourself?
                        When they had advanced together to meet on common
                        ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
                        and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
                        each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
                        mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
                        killing, and the ground ran with blood.

                        Homer, The Illiad

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by VonWeiner
                          You are human. You are not perfect. No one is. The girl you described above Jerico, may have decided for reasons that have nothing to do with you that she didn't want (or couldn't) continue seeing you. People are strange, who can guess what one thinks? It is difficult to know what motivates a person to do anything. It is hard to understand what motivates ourselves. And who knows you better than yourself?
                          Exactly. Perhaps I’m not quite so cynical, but I agree that it’s impossible to ask for a lifetime guarantee where other people’s commitment is concerned. Not because “other people” are inherently evil or wicked or out to deceive you, but simply because we are all growing and changing as our lives roll along. I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire rule about not being able to travel back in time to meet yourself was invented purely to prevent time-travellers from irritating their younger selves to such an extent that they give up entirely. I am not the man I was two years ago, and I’m incredibly grateful for that. We can all strive for a measure of self-awareness, but no one can ever truly know who they are, only who they were. Even if you were to lock yourself away in an attic with every self-help book and meditation tape on the market, eventually experiencing a profound epiphany of soul-quaking proportions, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference in the real world... as soon as you step outside that attic you will once again be at the tender mercy of external forces.

                          Personally, I tend to see this as a glass-half-full situation, because I enjoy the challenge of thriving and surviving in a patently absurd universe, but I realise this isn’t necessarily the dominant view. I do, however, believe that some inspiration can be found in the work of Mr Moorcock. To quote Oswald Bastable:

                          “I understood that it was only the very best in us, our capacity for love and self-respect, that enabled us to survive in a perpetually fragmenting multiverse. Only our deepest sense of justice allowed us to remain sane and relish the wonders of chaotic Time and Space, to be free at last of pain and fear... I looked forward to perpetual uncertainty, perpetual change, perpetual love. A nomad of the time streams, I would explore a multiverse as complex and a subtle and as creative as my own mind.”

                          It would be easy to dismiss such things as fiction, but the fact remains that the universe in which we all live is also one of perpetual change. As Tyler Durden says in Fight Club: “Nothing is static, everything is falling apart.” Again, that sounds rather bleak, but just because things fall apart doesn’t mean that they can’t be rebuilt, or be replaced with something better or more useful... that’s part of evolution. Old generations and ideas die away naturally, so that new ones can bloom. Old identities and roles can be shed, and new ones adopted. Adapt and survive, as they say.

                          The next line of Bastable’s reflection is:

                          “And I had a companion to help me.”

                          Which, I feel, is the most any of us can hope for. Not a pre-assigned “cosmic lover” or Eternal True Love, but a companion with whom we can negotiate the various obstacles thrown in our paths. Occasionally those paths will come together and overlap, sometimes they might split and take you both off in wildly different directions. The vital part is that you enjoy their company while you have the chance, and both learn what you can to best prepare for what might be lurking around the next bend.

                          Of course all of this has been taken from the file marked “easier said than done”, and I’m well aware that if I actually knew as much as I pretend to know about life, I probably wouldn’t be sat here alone, typing at a computer.

                          D...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ...and if I actually knew as much as I pretend to know about using a computer, I would have logged in before I posted the above. Sorry about that.

                            D...
                            "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My Machiavelli quote does paint a bleak picture huh? Well, I'll amend my earlier statement: "it means humans in general cannot be trusted."

                              "it means human nature generally cannot be trusted."

                              Still bleak? Yea, I guess so. But not so much eh? As I said, "hopelessly cynical". Maybe I will learn to shake off some of that cynicism by talking with all of you. :)
                              When they had advanced together to meet on common
                              ground, then there was the clash of shields, of spears
                              and the fury of men cased in bronze; bossed shields met
                              each other and the din rose loud. Then there were
                              mingled the groaning and the crowing of men killed and
                              killing, and the ground ran with blood.

                              Homer, The Illiad

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X