Re: Let's talk about sex, babe.
Think about it this way:
There's two people, one named Abc Zyx and Def Wvu. Abc and Def love each other, and therefore you can write out this sentence Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu. This sentence follows the basic sentence structure of the English language- subject -> verb -> object. Abc Zyx is the subject, loves is the verb, and Def Wvu is the object.
This also carries some significance, because in creating this relationship between Abc Zyx and Def Wvu, this sentence with the subject, verb, and object, you create a relationship in which Abc Zyx is acting upon (the verb is the action) Def Wvu, who is the object. I think trad. gender roles have to do with this sort of grammatical structure, in that the man is the subject and places the woman into the object role.
I think Dusk Raven raises a good point when he brings into it the sentence construction of "Abc and Def love each other" but even then I feel that this has implications that go away from the holy love that I am trying to explain. Abc and Def are no longer the subjects turning someone else into an object, as would be the case in "Abc loves Def" or "Def loves Abc" but at the same time it still operates under the same grammatical shortcomings- "Abc and Def" becoming the subject and "each other" is the object. No matter how you construct the sentence, there is always the subject and there is always the object. You can't get around it.
It's the whole Carson McCullers lover and beloved thing but examined analytically through grammar: http://mmsilverman.blogspot.com/2007...-sad-cafe.html
So what I'm saying is that with marriage you can go beyond all of this. In getting married, a union is formed between you and that other person. You, the two of you, become into one, so that instead of Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu the whole sentence can be boiled down into simply Zyx. When you meet Abc Zyx and Def Zyx it'd probably be easy to come to the conclusion that they are married, and what follows from there is that they must love each other. The ring is probably symbolic as well. What happens is that the whole sentence structure of Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu gets put somewhere off into the distance, and the idea of Zyx comes into the front, so that you have to confront that before you do the subject object relationship.
Therefore the love between Abc Zyx and Def Wvu exists outside of the verb, and the subject, Abc Zyx, and the object, Def Wvu, form into a single concept, Zyx
Just getting married doesn't form this union, the same as just forming a physical union doesn't make great sex- but without the initial connection, without this attempt at making oneness or holy love or whatever you want to call it, nothing will ever come from it. I think that love in a world without the idea or the concept of marriage would be like sex in a world without sexy parts. The idea is there, you can just never achieve.
Originally posted by Erika
View Post
There's two people, one named Abc Zyx and Def Wvu. Abc and Def love each other, and therefore you can write out this sentence Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu. This sentence follows the basic sentence structure of the English language- subject -> verb -> object. Abc Zyx is the subject, loves is the verb, and Def Wvu is the object.
This also carries some significance, because in creating this relationship between Abc Zyx and Def Wvu, this sentence with the subject, verb, and object, you create a relationship in which Abc Zyx is acting upon (the verb is the action) Def Wvu, who is the object. I think trad. gender roles have to do with this sort of grammatical structure, in that the man is the subject and places the woman into the object role.
I think Dusk Raven raises a good point when he brings into it the sentence construction of "Abc and Def love each other" but even then I feel that this has implications that go away from the holy love that I am trying to explain. Abc and Def are no longer the subjects turning someone else into an object, as would be the case in "Abc loves Def" or "Def loves Abc" but at the same time it still operates under the same grammatical shortcomings- "Abc and Def" becoming the subject and "each other" is the object. No matter how you construct the sentence, there is always the subject and there is always the object. You can't get around it.
It's the whole Carson McCullers lover and beloved thing but examined analytically through grammar: http://mmsilverman.blogspot.com/2007...-sad-cafe.html
So what I'm saying is that with marriage you can go beyond all of this. In getting married, a union is formed between you and that other person. You, the two of you, become into one, so that instead of Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu the whole sentence can be boiled down into simply Zyx. When you meet Abc Zyx and Def Zyx it'd probably be easy to come to the conclusion that they are married, and what follows from there is that they must love each other. The ring is probably symbolic as well. What happens is that the whole sentence structure of Abc Zyx loves Def Wvu gets put somewhere off into the distance, and the idea of Zyx comes into the front, so that you have to confront that before you do the subject object relationship.
Therefore the love between Abc Zyx and Def Wvu exists outside of the verb, and the subject, Abc Zyx, and the object, Def Wvu, form into a single concept, Zyx
Just getting married doesn't form this union, the same as just forming a physical union doesn't make great sex- but without the initial connection, without this attempt at making oneness or holy love or whatever you want to call it, nothing will ever come from it. I think that love in a world without the idea or the concept of marriage would be like sex in a world without sexy parts. The idea is there, you can just never achieve.
Comment