https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=ju_n_AlWBYs
in Language of Creation, your brother’s book, it talks about, call it the two halves of feminism, right, in this part of the equation, where sexually speaking, a woman is part procreation, and then it’s also part pleasure, right? So you could think of a woman that is a wife, and she’s a good mother of children, but then there’s also this part where she also has to embrace this pleasure side as well. It’s the familiar and the foreign, I believe it was described in your brother’s book. So I’m wondering, how does that play out and where you just led that? Is that what you’re saying? Is that what I’m saying? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so well, yes. So if you look at, so if you look, for example, at the symbolism in Song of Songs, right? So in Song of Songs, there really is this celebration of the ecstatic aspect of sexuality, you know, and in Song of Songs, the woman is a foreign woman, right? It’s suggested, it’s suggested in the sense that she’s suggested that she’s dark, right? That she’s dark, and she talks about how she’s, and so the idea of the Shulamite, so in the tradition, there’s this notion that in the Song of Songs, he’s talking about the queen of Sheba. He’s talking, it’s a story, he’s talking about the queen of the south, you know? And so there is this idea of being seduced by the foreign woman. And so there’s that danger of, let’s say, this kind of ecstatic, that’s, I don’t know if it’s the danger or the danger, the reality of this ecstatic moving out of yourself, right? So kind of like, and so the moving out of yourself can be seen in terms of pleasure, in terms of this ecstatic moment, but it can also be seen as this kind of joining, moving out, and could you also be idea of joining with the foreigner? So there’s like, how can you say the idea of something which is exotic, right? The exotic, let’s say. Okay. And then, like you said, there’s also the idea of then the homemaking in terms of the internal. So like you said, the mother, the, you know, all of this imagery is there. Now in Song of Songs, there’s both, too. Sometimes he talks about, he calls her his sister in Song of Songs, so it seems like there’s also this interesting relationship between the very far and the very close, almost in a very off way, almost. Okay. I can see that. So the idea is that you have to, in order to really get to the core of what sexuality is, you have to find a place where the two join together. And so where all the aspects of sexuality are kind of brought into a place. Like if you have them separated, then you have a problem. Because if you emphasize the pleasure aspect too much, then you actually will lose, you will lose your seed. You’ll waste your seed and you will waste your time, you’ll waste your energy, and you will actually will lose your strength. That’s one of the stories. That’s why the Samson story is so important. But it’s also the idea of like having kids with, look at the people that do that and what happens when they get women pregnant, and then they end up paying child support for like several women, and then their strength is taken away from them. It’s not just like a literary trope. If you sleep around, it’s going to catch up with you and you’re going to lose your strength and it’s going to suck you dry. And you’re not just that. But even if you don’t have children with those women, they’re going to float around you like, can I say this? They’re going to float around you even in your mind and your psyche and your imagination, but even in your life where they’re going to be poking at your edges and you’re not going to be able to hold the center. So it’s like a real practical thing. It’s not just like a flighty thing. And then you have this idea, like you said, of the homemaker, and the mother, where if you just focus on that, then it’s almost like you’re lacking an aspect of the ecstatic. You’re lacking that which can bring you out of yourself, which can bring you further. And so it’s almost like you can imagine almost like in the communion, there’s the bread and then there’s the wine. And so it’s like, one is the bread, one is the wine, but you’re supposed to have them together. You’re supposed to take the wine and the bread together. And that’s when you really have an image of paradise, let’s say, is when you have a fruitful union which produces fruit, produces offering, but is also something which makes you transcend yourself, which kind of bonds you in an ecstatic way to the person. Because it’s not just about pleasure. It’s also about this kind of ecstatic moment. So one is like practicality, like procreation, and making children, and propitiating the species, etc. And then there are ones like pleasure. And so if you have too much of the one, say like the practical elements, then maybe you lose some of that intimacy, right? In a marriage, let’s say. Well, you’ll lose the refreshing aspect, like you’ll lose the restfulness of it. And so it’ll become work. Your wedding, your relationship is just going to be work all the time. And you’re going to see your relationship with your wife as work, as tiring, as an effort you’ve got to put in, a grind you’ve got to keep your nose to the grind all the time, and you can be faithful, but it’s going to be work. Whereas if there’s also this other aspect to it, then there are moments of, there are small moments of ecstatic union, which refresh your relationship, and then will kind of erase a lot of the, can erase a lot of the little grit that gets accumulated, right? You can kind of wash it away. And so ultimately, the idea is to, I think is the idea is to have both. So, but you have to be careful, because if you like read the Church Fathers, they’ll tend to say, no, just procreation. And you see it in monastic writings, they are like, sexuality is just for procreation. And the ecstatic aspect of sexuality is kept for God, basically. And so you’re supposed to have this. But I think that I think that that’s a, I think that that’s, you always have to understand it as like you’re reading a monastic, like you’re not reading someone. Exactly. You’re not a monk. You’re not a monk. Unless you are, then what they’re saying is not, doesn’t really completely apply to you. But that also echoes the tension that St. Paul had too, right? In 1 Corinthians 7, in the chapters before and after that, where he’s talking about, yeah, well, okay, I could see it this way. But if you’re going to burn with passion, then it’s better to do this. And he’s really like, well, I’m not speaking the word of the Lord. I’m kind of processing right here. I’m paraphrasing, obviously. But yeah, so you know, what comes to mind, oddly enough, is an episode from Scrubs. Did you ever watch that show? No. Okay, so in the scene, it’s basically, a couple is trying to have a baby. And the wife is just taking it way too seriously. And she has a schedule. And she is there, they’re about to, you know, get into bed. And she’s like, Okay, so this is the right time of the moon cycle in my cycle. And I exercised, and I’ve dieted in the right way. And I’ve hydrated, you know, eight and a half cups of water or whatever. He’s like, this isn’t doing it for me, babe. And so it’s like, totally void of any intimacy or spontaneity or the wine, you could call it. Yeah. And so you’re like you said, it has to, there’s something about in that, if you lose, if you, how can I say this, if you, if you, if you’re only being practical about it, like you said, if you’re only doing it with this purpose, it’s actually not going to have it’s not going to work. It might work. And that’s what the guy said, not going to work. It’s actually, and even if you end up doing it, you that it’ll be difficult for the even the unless I mean, some women will get pregnant easily. But like, if you’re already having trouble getting pregnant, and then you’re like, yeah, right. It’s not gonna give. It’s not gonna happen. Sorry. Good luck with that. And in the case, so they like slow down and, and they’re like, okay, maybe we’ll do a date night first, you know.