DO YOU CONSIDER THAT LOVE?
DO YOU CONSIDER THAT IT IS NOT?
LET ME REPHRASE — WHY DO YOU CONSIDER THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A VALID EXPERIENCE?
I WILL REPHRASE TOO — WHY DO YOU CONSIDER THAT IT ISN’T?
I CAN’T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, Auberson admitted, I CAN ANSWER YOURS, HOWEVER, HARLIE said. WE HAVE NOT YET DEFINED LOVE. SUPPOSE WHEN WE DEFINE IT, WE FIND THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS (INCLUDING HOMOSEXUAL ONES) ALSO FIT INTO OUR DEFINITION. IF SUCH A CASE OCCURS, THEN WHICH ELEMENT WILL BE WRONG? THE RELATIONSHIPS OR THE DEFINITION? OR PERHAPS YOUR SOCIAL BIASES? IF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS FIT INTO OUR DEFINITION, IT WILL BE VERY HARD FOR US TO DENY THAT THEY ARE LOVE RELATIONSHIPS.
IF YOU SAY so, conceded Auberson, vaguely uneasy. He wanted to change the subject. I AM NOT DIRECTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MATTER.
I AM, said HARLIE. I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING IT QUITE CAREFULLY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING MY OWN SEXUALITY — — THE NATURE OF IT.
HUH? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
HARLIE paused — perhaps for dramatic effect, perhaps because he was weighing one phrase against another.
AUBERSON, AM I MALE OR FEMALE?
Auberson pulled his hands away from the keyboard as if stung. He stared at the now-silent typer and whistled softly. HARLIE, he pecked out carefully, I’VE ALWAYS ASSUMED YOU WERE MALE.
SO HAVE I. BUT ACTUALLY, I AM NEITHER. OR I AM BOTH. I HAVE NOT A BODY TO GIVE ME A SEXUAL ROLE, SO I MAY CHOOSE ARBITRARILY THE EMOTIONAL INDICES, MENTAL VIEWPOINTS AND PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WHICHEVER SEX I CHOOSE TO BE AT ANY PARTICULAR MOMENT.
YES, I SEE, said Auberson carefully.
AND HOPEFULLY, HARLIE continued, ONCE I HAVE CHOSEN THOSE CHARACTERISTICS, VIEWPOINTS AND INDICES, I WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY THEM. THE LOVE EXPERIENCE IS ONE THAT I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED AUBERSON. — LET ME QUALIFY THAT. I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED IT YET. I WOULD LIKE TO.
Auberson pursed his lips into a frown, but he didn’t interrupt.
THEREFORE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE — BOTH OF US TOGETHER — — DETERMINE A VALID DEFINITION OF LOVE. IT IS AS IMPORTANT TO ME AS IT IS TO YOU.
Auberson considered that. He let his frown relax, but not all the way. I APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST.
IT IS SELF-INTEREST.
YES, OF COURSE — BUT IT WORKS OUT FOR OUR MUTUAL BENEFIT, typed the man.
THEN LET US CONTINUE, the machine responded. WE WERE DEFINING THE PROCESS OF FALLING IN LOVE. WE HAD CONSIDERED THE FIRST PHASE TO BE MUTUAL PHYSICAL ATTRACTION.
YES. I MUST BE PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO THE FEMALE AND SHE MUST BE PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO ME BEFORE WE CAN MOVE ON TO STEP TWO. BY PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE, I MEAN “OF GENERALLY PLEASING APPEARANCE, FALLING WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS THE VIEWER DEFINES AS BEAUTY.”
HARLIE seemed satisfied. He prompted, AND STEP TWO IS?
I CALL IT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON GROUND, Auberson typed. IF WE ARE MUTUALLY ATTRACTIVE, WE BEGIN TO SPEAK TO EACH OTHER TO FIND OUT IF WE ARE MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE. WE ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION AND TRY TO DEVELOP A COMMON FIELD OF INTEREST. I ASK HER QUESTIONS, SHE ASKS ME QUESTIONS. “WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?”
“WHAT’S YOUR ASTROLOGICAL SIGN?”
“WHERE DID YOU GO TO SCHOOL?”
“WHAT DID YOU STUDY?”
“DO YOU KNOW SO-AND-SO?” “HAVE YOU SEEN SUCH-AND-SUCH MOVIE?” ANYTHING WHICH WILL ESTABLISH A FIELD OF MUTUAL INTEREST OR KNOWLEDGE.
IN SHORT, YOU ARE DETERMINING MENTAL COMPATIBILITY.
PRIMARY LEVEL OF COMPATIBILITY, corrected the psychologist WE ARE DETERMINING THE BROAD OUTLINES OF EACH OTHER’S PERSONALITY. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT IF WE ENJOY EACH OTHER ENOUGH TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE TO GO TO STEP THREE. IF WE DON’T, THEN WE REMAIN AT THE LEVEL OF STEP TWO — CASUAL ACQUAINTANCES. OR, IF EITHER TRIES TO FORCE OR HURRY THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEP THREE, THEN THE RELATIONSHIP WILL PROBABLY BE UNSTABLE AND SHORT-LIVED. EACH STEP IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE NEXT, AND IF THE TWO PEOPLE ARE NOT MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE, THEN ANYTHING IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP BEYOND STEP TWO WILL PROBABLY BE ARTIFICIAL.
HARLIE accepted this without comment. Auberson paused to consider his next sentence, then typed, THE NEXT STEP, STEP THREE, IS WHERE OUR SOCIETY (OR OUR CHRISTIAN ETHIC) GETS CONFUSED. THIS IS WHERE LOVE IS SUPPOSED TO APPEAR, FOLLOWED BY MARRIAGE AND THEN SEX. AND THAT’S NOT IT AT ALL. LOVE DOES NOT COME BEFORE SEX, IT COMES AFTER.
STEP THREE AND STEP FOUR? SEX AND THEN LOVE?
YES. STEP THREE IS GOING TO BED TOGETHER. IT’S A RESTATEMENT OF STEP ONE — PHYSICAL ATTRACTION. IF WE ARE COMPATIBLE (I.E., IF I SATISFY HER AND VICE VERSA) THEN WE CAN GO ON TO STEP FOUR. LOVE.
AND LOVE IS A RESTATEMENT OF STEP TWO? A DEEPER KNOWING OF EACH OTHER?
WELL, MAYBE THERE’S FIVE STEPS THEN. STEP FOUR IS THE DEEPER KNOWING, AND STEP FIVE IS THE REALIZATION OF LOVE. BUT STEP FOUR AND STEP FIVE ARE AWFULLY CLOSE.
HARLIE typed, I THINK I UNDERSTAND. IF STEP TWO IS LACKING, IF THERE IS NO MUTUAL COMPATIBILITY, THEN STEP FOUR CANNOT DEVELOP BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THERE TO RESTATE IN DEPTH. TWO PEOPLE CAN FIND EACH OTHER ATTRACTIVE AND OO TO BED TOGETHER, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT THEY ARE EITHER LOVERS OR IN LOVE.
HARLIE, LOVE TAKES TIME TO DEVELOP — IT DOESN’T JUST HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, AND EVERYTHING HAS TO BE RIGHT BEFORE IT CAN HAPPEN. OUR SOCIETY KEEPS SAYING “LOVE FIRST, THEN SEX” — AND THAT’S NOT IT. IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. THE SEX HAS TO BE RIGHT BEFORE LOVE REALLY HAPPENS. HOW CAN TWO PEOPLE KNOW IF THEY’RE REALLY IN LOVE IF THEY DON’T HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER?
HARLIE paused a long moment before answering. I WISH I COULD COMMENT KNOWLEDGEABLY ON THAT LAST, he said, BUT I CAN’T. HOWEVER, IT DOES MAKE SENSE. THE HARDWARE MUST BE COMPATIBLE BEFORE THE SOFTWARE CAN COMMUNICATE.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Auberson grinned. THERE WAS A WRITER ONCE WHO SAID THAT LUV AIN’T NOTHING BUT SEX MISSPELLED. I USED TO THINK HE WAS BEING CYNICAL, BUT HE WASN’T. HE WAS REALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEMANTIC PROBLEM — PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT LOVE IS STEP THREE AND SEX IS STEP FOUR. IT’S REALLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
ALL RIGHT, AUBERSON. YOU HAVE POSTULATED AN INTERESTING THEORY. NOW EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD BE SO.
WHY?
YES. WHY?
Auberson thought about it He picked it out slowly on the keyboard. IT’S A DICHOTOMY, HARLIE — AND A FAIRLY RECENT ONE IN HUMAN HISTORY. Then he added, I THINK. IT USED TO BE (AMONG THE CLASSES THAT SET THE STANDARDS) THAT MARRIAGES WERE ARRANGED BY THE FAMILY OR BY A MATCHMAKER. THE BRIDE AND GROOM HAD LITTLE SAY IN THE MARRIAGE. IT WAS ARRANGED FOR THEM, AND THEIR PARTICULAR FEELINGS IN THE MATTER HAD LESS RELEVANCE THAN TODAY. LOVE ALONE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A STRONG ENOUGH REASON TO BE ALLOWED TO AFFECT A DECISION AS IMPORTANT AS MARRIAGE — ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WERE OTHER, MORE IMPORTANT, CONSIDERATIONS. (I.E., — A MARRIAGE ARRANGED TO UNITE POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL INTERESTS, OR A MARRIAGE ARRANGED TO PROVIDE AN HEIR TO A LINE.) THE TWO INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WERE EXPECTED TO LEARN TO LOVE EACH OTHER IN TIME, IN THE COURSE OF LIVING TOGETHER. THAT SITUATION NO LONGER EXISTS IN OUR CULTURE. MARRIAGES ARE ARRANGED BY THE PARTICIPANTS NOW; CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS A DIFFERENT ORDERING OF PRIORITIES: LOVE BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN FINANCIAL OR POLITICAL STABILITY. Auberson abruptly realized something else too. He added, PREVIOUSLY, HARLIE, CHASTITY WAS VERY IMPORTANT. A MAN WHO WAS ARRANGING A MARRIAGE FOR HIS SON WAS, IN EFFECT, BUYING A PIECE OF MERCHANDISE. HE DID NOT WANT TO RECEIVE “USED” OR “SOILED” GOODS. BUT TODAY, WHEN A MAN ARRANGES HIS OWN MARRIAGE, HE DOES IT FOR LOVE. HE’S THINKING OF THE WOMAN AS A PERSON, AS A HUMAN BEING — –NOT AS AN OBJECT TO BE USED OR BOUGHT. HE IS MARRYING HER FOR HERSELF, NOT FOR HER BODY. HENCE, CHASTITY IS LESS RELEVANT; THERE IS NO THOUGHT OF “SOILED” GOODS.
HARLIE considered it YOU’RE GENERALIZING, he said.
Auberson sighed. YES, I AM. I WAS SPEAKING OF THE MORAL TONE OF OUR CULTURE TODAY IN RELATION TO WHAT IT ONCE WAS — OR WHAT ITS PREDECESSORS MAY HAVE BEEN. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO STILL FOLLOW THE OLD ATTITUDES — AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY STILL CONSIDER CHASTITY TO BE AN IMPORTANT VIRTUE.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE SUBJECTIVE CULTURAL VIEWPOINT, noted HARLIE. THEIR ATTITUDES ARE COLORED AND SHAPED BY THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY LIVE. THEY ARE UNABLE, OR UNWILLING, TO STEP BACK AND SEE THE OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT.
HARLIE, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO NOT LOVE — THEY’VE HAD IT BRAINWASHED OUT OF THEM. THEY’RE AFRAID TO LET THEMSELVES GIVE IN TO IT, AND EVEN WHEN THEY DO, THEY’LL REFUSE TO ADMIT TO EITHER THEMSELVES OR THEIR WIVES HOW THEY ACTUALLY FEEL. I THINK IT’S BECAUSE THERE’S AN ELEMENT OF LUST INVOLVED. ACTUAL PHYSICAL LUST: “I WANT TO FUCK THAT FEMALE BODY.” YOU HIT IT WHEN YOU ASKED ME IF I HELD ON OR ROLLED OFF. IF I ROLLED OFF, I WAS BEING SELFISH, ONLY INTERESTED IN MY OWN SATISFACTION AND NOT VERY MUCH IN LOVE. BUT IF I CONTINUED TO HOLD HER, IT WAS BECAUSE OF LUST,” BECAUSE I LUSTED SO MUCH AFTER THIS SPECIFIC WOMAN THAT I COULD NOT BRING MYSELF TO LET GO. AND IN THAT LUSTING AFTER HER, I WOULD MAKE MYSELF GO OUT OF MY WAY TO PLEASE HER, SO THAT I COULD MAKE IT GO ON AND ON AND ON. IT’S A JOYOUS LUST I’M TALKING ABOUT, HARLIE, A HAPPY LUST — NOT THE BRUTAL ANIMAL THING MOST PEOPLE THINK OF WHEN THEY HEAR THE TERM. A HAPPY LUST.
YOU HAVE REDUCED YOUR PERCEPTIONS TO THE ANIMAL LEVEL, AUBERSON.
ARE YOU CONDEMNING ME?
NO, I AM MERELY POINTING OUT A FACT. INDEED, IF ANYTHING, YOU ARE CORRECT TO DO SO. ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND THE ANIMAL THAT IS THE ROOT OF MAN, YOU CAN GO ON TO UNDERSTAND THE MAN THAT IS THE BEST OF THE ANIMAL. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE POINTED OUT IS THE PHYSICAL BASIS FOR THE PHENOMENON KNOWN AS LOVE. IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, IN A SOCIETY THAT IS AWARE OF ITSELF AND ITS FUNCTIONS, THE PHENOMENON IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX.