I read somewhere that a female human being will seek a mate for procreation: strong, powerful of muscle and mind – eye candy with a brain. And yet that same female human being will seek someone different to protect and nurture her children: a keeper, someone solid and caring, someone who will be there for her and their children. The conclusion was that monogamy is a cultural conundrum – that the essence of successful creation requires multiple partners.
I have a different thought. I have a thought that love is the answer – that love changes everything.
So yes, if the “female” seeks only a sperm donor of orgasm – then love is not a requirement. And yes, if the “male” seeks only a sperm recipient of orgasm – neither need love. Surely that is not the “creation of life”? Yet – for me – the consequence of orgasm and sharing sperm will have consequences. Not just if birth control statistics come true and creation of life is “the consequence”. But in the very act of that “intimacy of sharing” crossing a line. And how ignoring the crossing will eventually have consequences. Maybe not immediately.
But at some point “it” will not be enough. And hope for “life beyond the line” will be the consequence. And ALL life needs love – even hope. So the consequence of shared orgasm is life at some point – whether desired as “relationship” or not desired as “a baby” – both are the creation of life without love. Which may then need “multiple partners” before love is found (along with a growing scepticism of “love”).
I have found that “religious orgasm” with others has consequences. Because whilst there is no sperm sharing, there is “soul sharing” – and as far as I know there is no soul “birth control” available yet. And when you orgasm on religious faith you will create life. You will create hope that is living – and all living things need loving. So if the “hallelujahs” are all there is … if the “saving” is all there is … if “Sunday” is all there is … if Love is missing … how will then hope be nurtured?
And just as bad dating experiences cause disillusionment with “love” – so too bad experiences with religion cause disillusionment with “God”. And just as “all men” become bastards – so too “all religions” become evil. And just as “they only want to get a ring on my finger” – so too “religion” – and just as “I have had it with relationships” – so too the age-old “I have had it with God.”
All life needs love.
But we so often make God as fickle and imperfect as we see in each other. We so often impose our own shortcomings on God (and others who “believe in God”). We question both – we test both. And – surprise surprise! – BOTH come up short!
I have been through the lust stage. And I looked for the loving. And I found it missing. So I kept on looking. And found it in the most weird of places. I found it in the place God was – and I thought He wasn’t. I had tied God down – I had decided how big He was – I had defined where He was and where He was not – I had imposed ME on god! Yet He – as unconditional love – would not be bound. He – as Love – “escaped” my imposition – and He is always “there” before me – always and everywhere.
God does not change.
In my experience He does not go through the lust stage and move on to the love phase. In my own experience unconditional love is constant. And I have learned that unconditional love does not need. That unconditional love desires – empowers – liberates – allows – All – Always. Unconditional love does not change.
But I do.
I have changed. I have railed against my Lord. I still do. My real complaint is that God does not need me – God “desires” me. So I cannot test God in the way I can test others: How much do you love me (God)? Show me how much you love me (God)! If you love me (God) – then show me – make life easy – give me good things – stop all the bad things – make everybody’s lives perfect (God)! And even worse than that – my God never demands that of me either! My God never rails at me, never tests as I do, never demands as I do, but is constant and always!
The word “affluenza” comes to mind.
A term of privilege. A word which encapsulates the “legitimacy of unawareness” for others. The absence of accountability for ourselves. Of being brought up in “a bubble” of privilege one’s whole life. Of an absence of allowing others the same freedom I have – because I never knew they should or could! Affluenza is the legitimacy of being totally self-centred – to cause harm to others – and that harm not being my fault.
Affluenza is currently being tested in a court of law as a defence against just that.
Is that really the relationship we wish of God for ourselves – to be in this bubble of unaccountability – for all the bad stuff we do to each other – for all the bad stuff anywhere – for it always to be “His fault”? And what does that say about how we love ourselves – how we love others – before we ever get to “debating God”?
What does that “God” say not about God – but about us?