"If You Can't Love Yourself, How the Hell Are You Gonna Love Somebody Else?"

For extended portions of my adult life, I was celibate.  For a period of about three or four years, while I was exploring becoming a Roman Catholic priest, this was part of an intentional program--I was "voluntarily celibate," or "volcel" to use the term that has become popular in the Discourse.  But, for the rest of that period, I would have rather not been.  So, most of my adult life has been spent as an "incel."

Now, as it turns out, this is no longer true.  And, truthfully, it is great.  I would not go back to the way things were 18 months ago for any amount of money.  But that is only tangentially related to actual sexual activity.  Sex is fun and nice and makes me feel like I am desirable and powerful and that is wonderful.  But far, far better is lying in bed, fully clothed, with someone I love in my arms, talking and laughing.  If my choices were sex every night with a different woman and no sex but cuddling every night with the woman I love, I would take the latter and not think twice.

What I was missing was not sex, but love.  And, to be more precise, love of a particular kind.  What I wanted was someone who could say "yup, I freely pick you, over and above everyone else in the world."  Because the truth was that I had a number of situations in my life where I met wonderful, smart, dynamic, incredible women who said, "oh Mike, I would pick you. . . except for this other person."  I came in second a lot in my romantic life.  And that is a pretty terrible feeling.  I thought it meant that I was broken in some way.  Useful, sure.  Interesting to be around, definitely.  But not someone to be picked as the one and only.  I thought people were seeing something in me, and it was causing me to be consigned to a permanent silver medal.

And, I was right, but not in the way I thought at the time.  I thought that if someone picked me to be The One, then it would validate me as a person who could be loved in that way.  I needed someone else to fix me, and in their refusal to fix me in that way it demonstrated the need to be fixed.  And, until someone freed me from that status, that is who I was--broken, flawed, unlovable.

The problem is, when you set things up this way, the other person, the potential object of your affections, becomes, well, an object.  That person is a tool that is there to fill the empty space inside you.  And that's not love.  You cannot truly want the good of the other in an unqualified way if you simultaneously need the other person to prop up your psyche and make you whole.  That self-preservation instinct will always be at war with wanting the best for the other person.  And this is true no matter how truly you want to love the other person.  Good intentions cannot cover up the underlying problem.

I don't know if any of the people in my past saw this and had it inform their decision-making, or they sensed it and had it impact them on a subconscious level, or if they had no idea and this is coincidence.  What I do know is that I spent years of work getting to the point where I could look at myself, cognizent of all of my manifold flaws and imperfections, and be content with that person I saw.  I came, through time and work and the assistance of a wonderful counselor, to love myself--to feel that I was complete in myself.  And, soon after coming to that place of peace, I met Danielle.  You could say that it is coincidence, but I don't think so.

Danielle is a big fan of the show Ru Paul's Drag Race.  Ru Paul ends every show with the line "if you can't love yourself, how the hell are you gonna love somebody else?"  Whatever other virtues the show has, that line is spot-on.  If you can't love yourself, you can't love anyone else.  And, if that is true, you really should get to work on fixing the first part of the statement.

****************
Why am I telling this story?


Many folks have taken aim at the stats here, but I think that is a distraction (an interesting distraction, but a distraction).  I don't think you can seriously dispute that there is a segment of young-ish men who are isolated and alienated from society, and their complaints in large measure revolve around sex and lack thereof. 

The author of the tweet seems to think that greater sexual liberalism will allow for those who are currently not having sex to, well get some.  The only way I can see this being even remotely coherent is liberalism regarding laws around sex work.  Whatever you think about sex work (and I am not really opposed on balance), the problem is that's not what the incels are asking for.  They want sexual relationships--a person who will have sex with them in the broader context of some sort of partnership.  

Some of the incels, I think, don't really care about the degree to which they are instrumentalizing the woman who would be part of these proposed, facilitated relationships.  In other words, they don't really care about the other person thinks or feels about the relationship, they just want them to fill their needs.  [Indeed, I think to the extent there has been a change in long-term relationship patterns, much of it can be explained by the fact that women are not as often economically coerced into relationships with these sorts of guys as they used to be].  

But some of these guys are at least open to a true, mutual relationship.  For those guys, none of what the Twitter poster is talking about will fix their problem.  No other person can fix their problem, and no program can, either.  This is going to be controversial, but no religion can fix their problem, nor can any therapist.  Those two things can help, but they cannot truly address the real issue.  No, there is no substitute for looking inside yourself and making peace with what you see.  Only you can do that.  If you don't do that, if you don't get right with yourself, you will push the person you want to find away.

I cannot say what each person needs to do to come to that peace.  I cannot even fully recreate exactly how I did it for me.  As I said, it was slow, and it came in stages, and then one day I saw myself in a different light.  So maybe I am not being much help here.

But, I am very certain that whatever the path is for each particular sad, lonely, disaffected young-ish man out there, it is not about finding or coercing women into being sex partners for these guys.  No orgasm can fill the hole inside yourself. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

On a Pelagian Politics, and Why It Would Be Good

I have two very hot takes.  The first is that Joe Biden is the best United States President in my lifetime, and probably the best since Franklin Roosevelt, and his many critics on both the right and the left are wrong.  The second is that the Irish monk Pelagius and his (mostly Celtic) disciples were basically right, and more specifically Pelagius's great opponent Augustine (and by extension the rest of the Western Church ever since) was wrong.  But the hottest take, the Hegelian synthesis of this Hotness, is that these two takes are ultimately the same take.  I believe that Biden is a great President because I am a Pelagian with a Pelagian world view, whereas American politics is fundamentally Calvinist, which is just Augustinianism taken to its logical conclusion. Let me try to justify this ball of hot takes. 1. Most of what we know of Pelagius comes from his opponents, especially Augustine and Jerome, who attempted (more or less successfully) to have him cast out of the church a
Read more

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more