Great essay. I can relate in a lot of ways to the stinginess / oppressiveness of my upbringing-- a little bit on the cleanliness part but a lot on the religious shunning and shaming of sex.
Women are still a mystery, and always will be, and that's partly what makes them so interesting. Each is different (I imagine most would not react the same way as the women in the bathroom, or Mona, but then again some would), and also each woman changes constantly, sometimes on a minute by minute basis. Men in contrast are more direct and single-minded in their pursuits (including sex), less willing to change unless forced to. This is a blessing and a curse.
These are broad generalizations, obviously, but like most stereotypes, they are partially true, and for a reason. It is this polarity between the sexes that makes relationships so interesting and exciting. Dirty /rugged / hairy vs. clean / smooth / beautiful; raw vs. refined; daring vs. caring; and so on.
But before I digress too much, my point was that Miller captures something of the magic of women, but it will always be elusive, and that's a good thing. Just like our understanding of the whole world. And so even though I missed out on a lot of relationships while growing up, it was all part of the grand experiment, that is ongoing and everlasting... until we die of course.
One last thing: I don't believe in a literal hell, myself, but I do believe there is a hell on earth, and like your dad said and Miller wrote, it is possible to be physically alive while spiritually dead. But I do think we feel that, if on a subtle level. And it's our responsibility to change that now, before it's too late, not necessarily because we will go to hell after our lives are over, but because we will have wasted our lives living in hell the whole time, when we could have been in paradise, and helping to build that here on earth.
This may sound paradoxical but the real brand equity of Christianity is the sexuality between a man and a woman. Christianity has given it cosmic meaning by stating that the marriage of a man and woman is the image of the relationship between God and humanity. Thinking clearly and passionately about men and women and our relationship with one another—especially our sexuality—has the highest possible dignity and importance. Permitting lies to infiltrate our understanding and practice of sexuality has caused the widespread and devastating consequences we see everywhere in the 21st century—because these lies have poisoned our relationship with God.
I remember learning about that analogy in church, but for some reason, it never really carried any weight for me. It feels too abstract and theoretical. Or maybe because I’m male, and masculine, the idea of God being the groom and the church (me) being his bride, is not that appealing.
A similar, but different, analogy that I’ve like recently is from “The Way of the Superior Man”, in which he states the world (and God in it) is like a woman, who will resist me, mystify me, test me, and require me to rise to the challenge and “penetrate” it with my steadfast love and commitment, and then the world will open up and share its beauty and secrets and love with me. But this is an ongoing practice, not a once-and-done thing.
God as the loving father (e.g. with the prodigal son, or with Job), or as the suffering servant, or as the loving brother (with his disciples) are also strong metaphors for me, but the bridge/groom one just doesn’t click… haha
...it is like dirty neil simon...rad...great work digging in so deep and being open, pure and available...really enjoyed reading this...i once went 45 days without a shower and still ended up getting laid a couple times...i still feel bad about that...what beasts we can be...
...haha...i'm not sure man this man knows how to write some beautiful filth...but definitely worth a shot some time...i'm just always afrais one of my family members would read it lol...sorry mom!...
That's exactly how Henry Miller felt--his mother strongly disapproved of his career as a writer, and told him so all his life until she died. She probably never read a word he wrote, which I guess is a feature, not a bug.
The dirt metaphor is interesting because I have the same experience where my mother also obsesses over cleanliness. I love her, nonetheless. But, recently, some folks have argued that we’re *too* clean.
It’s been said that because modern folks are so obsessed with sanitizing every surface, that we are not exposing ourselves to “enough” pathogens. So, our immune systems are inadequately trained to deal with them. Thus, increasing our vulnerability to every pathogen out there.
Of course, I’m not suggesting we expose ourselves to the deadliest pathogens. But hormesis is a thing.
That makes me wonder… are we living in an age in which we are *too* “clean,” leaving us vulnerable in ways we may not yet realize?
I do wonder about this extreme fear of “dirt” some people have, and its extension to masculine men.
Fascinating ideas Alvin . . . the great paradox is that men may not embody beauty, necessarily, but we are great lovers of beauty--that's why we love women, who are beautiful and feel and smell good. So all the positive qualities we associate with women are what attract men, and so we love women, and also become artists, writers, architects and creators of other beauty because we don't naturally embody beauty the way a woman does. The corollary, as Henry Miller shows, is that women are attracted to the elemental, primitive, audacious energy men express and their will to act boldly.
Great essay. I can relate in a lot of ways to the stinginess / oppressiveness of my upbringing-- a little bit on the cleanliness part but a lot on the religious shunning and shaming of sex.
Women are still a mystery, and always will be, and that's partly what makes them so interesting. Each is different (I imagine most would not react the same way as the women in the bathroom, or Mona, but then again some would), and also each woman changes constantly, sometimes on a minute by minute basis. Men in contrast are more direct and single-minded in their pursuits (including sex), less willing to change unless forced to. This is a blessing and a curse.
These are broad generalizations, obviously, but like most stereotypes, they are partially true, and for a reason. It is this polarity between the sexes that makes relationships so interesting and exciting. Dirty /rugged / hairy vs. clean / smooth / beautiful; raw vs. refined; daring vs. caring; and so on.
But before I digress too much, my point was that Miller captures something of the magic of women, but it will always be elusive, and that's a good thing. Just like our understanding of the whole world. And so even though I missed out on a lot of relationships while growing up, it was all part of the grand experiment, that is ongoing and everlasting... until we die of course.
One last thing: I don't believe in a literal hell, myself, but I do believe there is a hell on earth, and like your dad said and Miller wrote, it is possible to be physically alive while spiritually dead. But I do think we feel that, if on a subtle level. And it's our responsibility to change that now, before it's too late, not necessarily because we will go to hell after our lives are over, but because we will have wasted our lives living in hell the whole time, when we could have been in paradise, and helping to build that here on earth.
Thank you Grant!
This may sound paradoxical but the real brand equity of Christianity is the sexuality between a man and a woman. Christianity has given it cosmic meaning by stating that the marriage of a man and woman is the image of the relationship between God and humanity. Thinking clearly and passionately about men and women and our relationship with one another—especially our sexuality—has the highest possible dignity and importance. Permitting lies to infiltrate our understanding and practice of sexuality has caused the widespread and devastating consequences we see everywhere in the 21st century—because these lies have poisoned our relationship with God.
I remember learning about that analogy in church, but for some reason, it never really carried any weight for me. It feels too abstract and theoretical. Or maybe because I’m male, and masculine, the idea of God being the groom and the church (me) being his bride, is not that appealing.
A similar, but different, analogy that I’ve like recently is from “The Way of the Superior Man”, in which he states the world (and God in it) is like a woman, who will resist me, mystify me, test me, and require me to rise to the challenge and “penetrate” it with my steadfast love and commitment, and then the world will open up and share its beauty and secrets and love with me. But this is an ongoing practice, not a once-and-done thing.
God as the loving father (e.g. with the prodigal son, or with Job), or as the suffering servant, or as the loving brother (with his disciples) are also strong metaphors for me, but the bridge/groom one just doesn’t click… haha
This was so good, Chris. And TOC is one of my favorite pieces of modern literature, by a genius author.
Thank you Silvio--really appreciate your comment!
...it is like dirty neil simon...rad...great work digging in so deep and being open, pure and available...really enjoyed reading this...i once went 45 days without a shower and still ended up getting laid a couple times...i still feel bad about that...what beasts we can be...
Lol - you're my hero! I think you might able to give Henry Miller his comeuppance . . .
...haha...i'm not sure man this man knows how to write some beautiful filth...but definitely worth a shot some time...i'm just always afrais one of my family members would read it lol...sorry mom!...
That's exactly how Henry Miller felt--his mother strongly disapproved of his career as a writer, and told him so all his life until she died. She probably never read a word he wrote, which I guess is a feature, not a bug.
A risky and risqué piece, Chris! I love it.
The dirt metaphor is interesting because I have the same experience where my mother also obsesses over cleanliness. I love her, nonetheless. But, recently, some folks have argued that we’re *too* clean.
It’s been said that because modern folks are so obsessed with sanitizing every surface, that we are not exposing ourselves to “enough” pathogens. So, our immune systems are inadequately trained to deal with them. Thus, increasing our vulnerability to every pathogen out there.
Of course, I’m not suggesting we expose ourselves to the deadliest pathogens. But hormesis is a thing.
That makes me wonder… are we living in an age in which we are *too* “clean,” leaving us vulnerable in ways we may not yet realize?
I do wonder about this extreme fear of “dirt” some people have, and its extension to masculine men.
Fascinating ideas Alvin . . . the great paradox is that men may not embody beauty, necessarily, but we are great lovers of beauty--that's why we love women, who are beautiful and feel and smell good. So all the positive qualities we associate with women are what attract men, and so we love women, and also become artists, writers, architects and creators of other beauty because we don't naturally embody beauty the way a woman does. The corollary, as Henry Miller shows, is that women are attracted to the elemental, primitive, audacious energy men express and their will to act boldly.