I think it is obvious that Erich Fromm didn't emphasize sex itself in realm of love as much as contemporary Psychologist authors who write book about love or relationship. Inspite of he wrote a book about sexuality he didn't overestimate sex itself in realm of love. I think I can understand why. I think he actually had deeper and wider knowledge about sex and sexuality than other Psychologists and psychoanalists. Therefore he could write about sex as itself and I sense he had same idea that I have. The humanistic point that sex is for making love, if it is necessary to make a purpose of that. Now, my knowledge of sex is obviously lacking and I want to know much more but my intuition telling me that is what it is. If I see the world just with only perception of my eye ball, I would just see every thing about it without judgement and filter. But my tendency and characteristic-humanistic mind and love centered-make me think this way 'I see more bigger point of view if I can think that beyond the barrier of language' Inspite of all the difference of each of human behaviour, we call it just as one word "sex" I mean include all the nasty stuffs; fucking, humping, rape, conquer, using, taking, exploitating, enjoy, work, job-porn and prostitution we just call it sex. Then there is no difference with making love, physical expression of emotion, physical harmonizing, spiritual harmonize, phsyical movement of soul, sharing the body, moment, experience, joyous with the person I love. 'I don't need to experience all kind of sex that exist in this world.'
굳이 성교 존재의 목적을 만든다면, 그것은 사랑을 위한 것이다.
No comments:
Post a Comment