I recently read a book in which the author was trying to decipher why our sexual lives are so much different from those of the animals. He speculates on many things, and relates many biological anecdotes, but what many see to be the heart of the whole matter is left untouched. For we as human beings cannot see the sexual act as some pure animal function, but imbue it with powerful spiritual and emotional meaning.
I do not believe that human beings are merely animals, and so what is puzzling to that author seems obvious to me. We have strange sex lives because sex is fundamentally a relationship, and when we try to reduce it to the level of sheer animality we find pain and brokenness. The true sexual relationship is in essence a becoming, manifesting spiritual oneness through bodily activity. It is a renewal of internal intimacy and commitment between two partners in the appropriate context, but divorced from this context is divested or perverted from its organic becoming-nature and becomes artificial and harmful.
But what do we mean by the “true” sexual relationship? Before we proceed, we must draw clearly the distinction between the “true” sexual relationship and the “lower” sexual act. The true sexual relationship is meant to be a relationship between two people only, in the context of a lifetime commitment, and representing a desire for spiritual oneness manifested through physicality. Sex is the seal of oneness. It is a renewal of the covenant between two people to love one another and give their lives for one another. It is like a sacrament, just as the Eucharist is composed of physical elements which denote spiritual transformation.
As we know, though, not all sex happens inside marriage. This is the vulgar Aphrodite of Pausanias, the base animal urge which does not depend on rationality but forsakes it. Though the fundamental desire remains, we pervert it by attempting to strip it of its proper place. As C.S. Lewis writes in Mere Christianity, “You must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.”
We are all looking for oneness, and we will never find it in the pure sexual act divested of its relationality. We attempt to reduce ourselves to animals, and we find that as animals we are miserable failures. Seen another way, we look for the reward of accomplishment without the pain of the work that must be done beforehand. And so we are left empty. This sort of sex is stasis masquerading as becoming, artifice attempting to pass as growth. It may satisfy for the moment, but it will not, and by definition cannot, last. The true sexual relationship is a symbol, and so it resides in symbolic space, and endures. The sexual act devoid of relational commitment is just an act, and is over in minutes.
Commitment is necessary for true sexuality, but only a certain sort of commitment will suffice. A plant may be repotted many times, but it must be done carefully. An oak may be uprooted and planted somewhere else, but it is very far from easy, and will be time-consuming as well. Our relationships are alive, and they are growing. Some relationships are peripheral, like potted plants, and forming or re-forming them takes some effort, but it is possible.
The sexual relationship, as a symbol of spiritual oneness, is like a centuries-old oak tree, dominating the landscape of our relationality, taking preeminence over all other human relationships. And this tree can only become what it should be, good and beautiful, in a soil which is permanent. There is a soil of commitment on which the organism of the sexual relationship takes place, and it must be a solid one.
It is therefore self-defeating to express multiple commitments and break them. For growth to occur, there must be only one soil. For the true sexual relationship to occur, there must be only one commitment, only one partner. In ontological categories, I suppose that the true sexual relationship is a becoming preconditioned by a being. The soil of absolute trust and security allow the two individuals to open themselves to each other and engage in the process of becoming one.
Therefore, the true sexual relationship is essentially rational and interpersonal, fostered by a lifetime commitment between two people, and acting as a symbolic manifestation of spiritual oneness. It is a becoming one, grounded in a being committed. But this can only occur if we accept our rational nature, and accept the mental and spiritual union that must go along with the physical act. Otherwise, we pervert the symbol into an artificial substitute that will fail to satisfy us.
Though perhaps more importantly, the true sexual relationship will not be pointed solely inwardly. An inflated view of the sexual relationship is just as harmful as a deficient one. There remains a seeking, though a seeking together, of that which is higher than ourselves. We must, in the end, be seeking God and not each other. To quote Lewis again, taken originally from Denis de Rougement, “Eros ceases to be a devil only when it ceases to be a god.”
