Listen To The Article
Present psychoanalytic knowledge underscores that all forms of love trace their genesis to early childhood, predominantly during stages of psychosexual development. It asserts that romantic involvement can be equated to a dream state due to the pronounced presence of imagined infantile residues from these developmental stages. These echoes are especially noticeable during the unraveling of love in the Oedipal phase and its concomitant emergence of sexual desire. Ideally, this desire should be firmly tethered to the successful resolution of the Oedipal complex, accompanied by the assimilation of the incest taboo and acceptance of symbolic castration. This essentially means accepting the inherent incompleteness of human beings. The outcome of this resolution lays the groundwork for the experience of love and sexuality in both adult women and men.
In Freud’s conceptualization, love and sexuality materialize as a gentle emotional current that intertwines with a sexual current. Adult romantic relationships are thus typified by the congruence of love, affection, and sexuality.
When Freud expounds on sexuality, he does not confine its definition to mere genital activity. Instead, he extends this concept to encompass the genesis of all forms of affectionate emotions. As a result, he consistently associates it with the term “psycho,” denoting “psychosexuality.” For Freud, sexuality and love (or “lieben” in German) are inextricably intertwined. He further contends: “A dearth of psychic satisfaction, with all its attendant repercussions, can manifest even in scenarios where standard sexual relations are regularly maintained.”
A schism between tender sentiments and sexuality precipitates a deterioration in the quality of one’s love life. In this situation, the partner is degraded to the status of an object, merely serving as a means for episodic gratification. This objectification is epitomized by the contemporary expression “friends with benefits.” Correspondingly, the traditional phrase “making love” is now seldom heard. Instead, euphemisms such as “having a quickie” or the Arabic “عملت سكس” (I had sex) are in vogue. These trends underscore a proclivity among some individuals towards transient gratification, predominantly obtained through the relief accompanying the discharge of pent-up desires.
Certain men grapple with a predicament wherein “they cannot desire where they love and cannot love where they desire,” as Freud articulated. This conundrum precipitates a bifurcation of women into two categories: those they devalue and denigrate, assuming the semblance of prostitutes, and those who are exalted to the status of idolized mothers. Surprisingly, some women resonate with this male dichotomy, seeking one man who embodies the paternal ideal and another for sexual gratification. The fallout from this dichotomy is the ignition of intrapsychic conflicts, significantly impacting self-relationships and interpersonal dynamics. Furthermore, both sexes can be ensnared by the seductive power of fantasies within the sexual act. Certain women even identify with the male archetype of the sexual predator, as some sexologists posit, similar to the stance that singer Rihanna has publicly endorsed: “Men are like hunters, they love the chase… And I’m like that too!”
Sexuality, while intertwined with love, is not wholly reducible to it. It cannot thrive within the pursuit of male or female sexual performance. The fantasy of ceaseless male erection or incessant female orgasm symbolizes the apprehension of confronting the unavoidable boundaries of sexual pleasure, thus contesting the essence of love.
To love implies a holistic concern for the entirety of the other person’s being, transcending superficial perceptions, whereas sexuality is focused on the objectification of the other’s body. As Jacques Lacan asserted, “When you love, it’s not about sex,” but that does not preclude its existence. Gabriel García Márquez concurred: “Sex is a consolation when love is not enough.” Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand that the sexual drive in humans is immediately subjected to individual personal histories and sociocultural norms and lacks the primitive instinct observed in animals.
F. Dolto’s insightful distinction between desire and need is also worth considering: “Desire is something that is always new, that does not repeat itself. It is a matter of pleasure to be found in what we do, with the people we do it with.” While need is satiated through its tangible consumption, desire, in a psychoanalytic perspective, directs an individual to confront their inherent deficiency. It propels them towards the other, acknowledging their distinctiveness and their status as an object impossible to possess and resistant to reduction to a narcissistic duplicate. Thus, genuine desire persuades the other to relinquish possessive and dominating fantasies, if they are so inclined.
Referencing Plato’s Banquet, it is understood that romantic love unveils personal deficiencies. In other words, love and desire can only be conceived against a backdrop of loss, or as a yearning “for what one does not have, for what one is not, for what one lacks.” To love and desire another is to harbor the irrational hope that the other can somehow fill this void. As long as this void persists, love and desire will accompany it. Paraphrasing B. Spinoza, one could assert: it is not because an object is lovable that I desire it, but because I desire it, it becomes lovable.
To conclude with a touch of humor, let us recall an insightful excerpt from Woody Allen’s film, A Midsummer Night’s Dream: “- Do you confuse love and sex? – No, for me love goes deep, sex only a few inches!”
