|
The Physical Vs. Chemical Marriage
by Juno Lucina If a red, red rose is the universal symbol of true love, then attraction is the thorniest subject in human history. When we are in the thick of it, when the heady perfumes overtake us and we find ourselves swept up in the in tempest of passion, it is the sweetest sensation on planet earth. However, if our neighbors are caught in it, or if our forefathers changed the course of human events because of it, we condemn from our lofty platforms of distance and reason. The ancients personified attraction as a force to be both worshipped and feared. Our literature even mirrors this grappling with attraction. In her recent novel The Probable Future, Alice Hoffman reflects, “Polar opposites. Definition: a magnetic force that was uncontrollable…. Were some people made of fire, others of water, or earth, or air? Were there those a person was drawn to, no matter how much she might fight her attraction, and others that repelled, no matter how they might try to please?”(1) Although many cultures have labored to quell its uncontrollable effects upon the individual, the institution of marriage, and the society at large through laws, religions, and taboos, they have never truly succeeded, for from the tiniest atom to the mightiest star, Attraction, with its darker twin of Repulsion, is the Master of this physical universe of duality; and, in spite of our better judgment, we love being their slaves. At first glance, attraction seems to have had little to do with legal marriage throughout history, yet upon closer inspection it becomes obvious that legal marriage was, in fact, humanity’s attempt to manage human attraction through a type of slavery. Anthropologists tell us that amongst primitive peoples, with their matriarchal cultures, emphasis upon monogamous sexual relationships was rare, and the modern concept of the nuclear family was nonexistent as every child was a child of the tribe; therefore, traceable paternity was unimportant. But with the onset of patriarchal society and its emphasis upon conquest, as well as the masculine fear of the sexual power that females naturally wield over them as a result of their own bodies’ wayward desires, it became imperative to own and control the object of their fear. Thus, we have a long period of time wherein women were little more than property, with few personal rights, as marriages were arranged based upon the estate value, the dowry, and the family lineage, with some societies even having multiple wives (and concubines) to one husband; if attraction was involved at all, it was generally the male’s attraction that mattered, and strict mores governed the institution of marriage, with unyielding punishments enforced by both the governing authorities and the religious leaders for law-breakers. Attraction, of course, was alive and just as out-of-control as always, only it went undercover, so to speak. We need only a precursory knowledge of mythology, the arts, infidelity, and the troubadours to know that, although attraction was often divorced from the traditional marriage bed, it continued to spill its seed into millions of others. All the limits and consequences in the world didn’t prevent its mastery of humanity. Currently--with progress, the onset of democracy, and, of course, women’s rights--we are seeing less and less of these slave-type marriages. Instead, the concept of marriage in our culture has shifted to the other extreme, with the help of Hollywood and the media, becoming a Cinderella story wherein two people join together in mutually exclusive attraction and affection to live “happily ever after.” (The proverbial bitch is finally having her day.) A “happy” marriage today is a sickeningly sweet combination of Disneyland and a Harlequin romance novel, and the once black and white lines between masculinity and femininity are being blurred to a grey androgyny. Unfortunately, this newer concept more often than not seems to be a distant fantasy, as evidenced by the latest divorce statistics, rise in domestic crimes, rampant pornography, and proliferation of marital counselors. Perhaps, instead of increased overcompensation and intensive therapy, what humankind needs is a greater understanding of this unruly compulsion called attraction, along with a broader conception of marriage. The first place to search for clues as to the nature of attraction is not in human dynamics or even in the animal kingdom; the laws of attraction are defined in any beginning science class. There are basically two differing types of attraction. Haven’t we all heard (or said) when observing some couples that “opposites attract?” The laws of physics affirm this fact. At the subatomic and atomic level, opposites do attract. Or to be more precise, if two particles exist and have opposite charges, they will attract each other; electrons are held in "orbit" around the nucleus of the atom because they're attracted to the protons, their opposites. A chemical bond is an attraction between a negatively charged atom (an atom containing extra electrons) to a positively charged atom (an atom with too few electrons); this is brought about by a sharing of electrons between two atoms (Covalent bond) or a complete transfer of electrons (Ionic bond). Atoms join together, forming chemical bonds or compounds, and a stable compound occurs when the total energy of the combination has lower energy than the separated atoms. It’s the simple need to either fill a hole or to be filled. At their most basic level, men and women are physical opposites, much like a proton and a neutron or two unstable atoms, and to the degree that a man and woman’s attraction is based upon this basic opposition, the attraction and subsequent emphasis within their union will be primarily physical in focus. We also sometimes describe two people as having “chemistry” with each other. At the next level up, the chemical level, science asserts that like attracts like. When we mix oil and water, do they ever truly mix? No. They are not alike. Water is a polar molecule, it has a partial positive charge at one site and a partial negative charge at another site. Oil, however, is a nonpolar molecule; it is hydrophobic, or poorly soluble in water because it does not carry even a partial charge anywhere. Conversely, we notice that oil droplets in water seem to always find each other and connect. This phenomenon is called the Law of Homogeneity, which asserts that not only does like attract like, but that if a particular substance is split, the split parts will re-unite when given an opportunity. Matter is formed on this principle, and gravity is based upon it. To the degree that a relationship is based upon similarity it is a higher connection. It is a connection far beyond the basic attraction of opposites in which an unstable particle cleaves to an opposite particle in order to achieve a state of stability; instead, this second type of attraction is based upon transformation, the desire to return to one’s source. Chemical attractions are spiritual. The Greek philosopher Plato had much to say with regards to this second type of attraction. In his Symposium, he tells a myth about the earliest human beings, who were complete within themselves: either male-male, male-female, or female-female. Because he feared their strength, Zeus divided humanity in two, leaving each of us to spend our lives searching for our missing half. This attraction, an attraction of likes, is a searching for ourselves in the other. We often use the term platonic love today to describe a nonsexual friendship, but this usage is ultimately in error. Plato’s concept of love transcends physical desire, leading towards the purely spiritual or ideal; it is a love of spiritual reunion, for he believed that sexual desire sometimes serves as the germ for higher loves. The tantric tradition of the Hindus echoes Plato’s conception of connection. In her book, Tantric Sex, Cassandra Lorius explains that, “Tantra…embraces the alchemical idea that each of us has an inner man and an inner woman, and that our sexual partners are external reflections of this inner marriage. When we are united with our partner, we unite with the other half of our selves, becoming whole.”(2) The poet Rumi, a Sufi mystic, was obsessed with describing this phenomenon. He observes that, “When bodies blend in copulation, spirits also merge.”(3) For Rumi, searching for the Lover is really searching for oneself. One poem asserts that, “The minute I heard my first love story I started looking for you, not knowing how blind that was. Lovers don’t finally meet somewhere. They’re in each other all along.”(4) His poetry expresses the experience of loving the beloved as the door to comprehending the divine when he says, “What is the body? That shadow of a shadow of your love, that somehow contains the entire universe….”(5) Through this connection, he believed we merge with the Creative Force of the Universe: I saw you and became empty. This emptiness, more beautiful than existence, It obliterates existence, and yet when it comes, Existence thrives and creates more existence!(6)
Osho, the self-proclaimed “spiritually incorrect” mystic, explains this experience of attraction another way, “Wherever love is, there is resistance too. Wherever you are tremendously attracted, you would like to escape also from that place, from that space, because to be immensely attracted means you will fall into the abyss, you will no longer be yourself. Love is dangerous. Love is a death.”(7) Spiritual transcendence has always been described as a type of death, and the life/death/life cycle permeates the chemical relationship. In order for transformation to occur, the old must die in order to make way for the new. The Apostle Paul refers to this in 2 Corinthians 5:17 of the New Testament when he asserts, “…if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”(8) Clarissa Pinkola Estes, psychologist and cantadora, discusses this at some length in her groundbreaking book, Women Who Run With the Wolves. She maintains that, “We have been taught that death is always followed by more death. It is simply not so, death is always in the process of incubating new life…. That is how love relationship is meant to work, each partner transforming the other.”(9) Not only is there death and transformation in the chemical marriage, but it also differs from the physical marriage in that it does not strive to possess the beloved. Deepak Chopra, in his metaphysical classic The Way of the Wizard, discusses the difference between physical marriage and spiritual marriage using the mouth of the wizard, Merlin: “You mortals call it love when you feel completely attached to another person…. Your fantasy is either to possess someone completely or to be completely possessed. But wizards call it love when they feel no attachment, no possession.”(10) Joseph Campbell, the father of the modern mythological movement, explains the goal of the chemical marriage. In The Power of Myth he comments that, “The true marriage is the marriage that springs from the recognition of identity in the other, and the physical union is simply the sacrament in which that is confirmed.”(11) To Campbell, “Marriage is not a love affair…. A marriage is a commitment to that which you are. That person is literally your other half. And you and the other are one.”(12) But how many couples actually succeed in attaining this ideal of transformation, this complete lack of attachment and possession, this oneness in marriage? It appears to be very few. Does this mean that most of our marriages today are primarily of the body and not of the spirit? Well, yes and no. Yes, there is a general trend towards physical marriages today. After all, most people view marriage as being for the benefit of the body, the family, and the society. And when you have marriages whose primary focus is on the physical, you have the general instability that results from the attraction of opposites. I propose that an expansion of consciousness from the physical to the chemical, or spiritual, level of marriage is exactly what our marriages desperately need. Our basic concept of marriage needs to be broadened considerably. When we speak of the attraction between two particles, two molecules, or two people, we are ultimately speaking of the act of relating, or the state of being in relationship. Even though it is difficult to trace the etymology of the word marriage, the word “wed” comes from the Scottish wed, meaning a pledge. In its most basic sense, marriage is a pledge, a commitment, or a contract to unify oneself with someone (or something). With our growing acceptance of same sex and common law marriages today, we are erasing the precedent that marriages must be between a man and a woman, involve formal oaths, be for the purpose of procreation, and involve an exchange of property, although this is still sometimes the case. There are many other types of marriage beyond the traditional one; for instance, Shakespeare writes of the “marriage of true minds.” Some clergy are married to Jesus Christ. Professionals are often referred as being married to their work. Any time sexual intercourse between a man and a woman produces children, it is called a natural marriage, regardless of the parent’s legal matrimonial status. With this broader definition of marriage in mind, we can see that there is an increased chance of successful chemical matrimony. Relationships, however, are never in a static, frozen state of existence. They are dynamic, in a constant state of flux. Perhaps it is more effective to view each individual relationship as a gradient; at times a relationship may be more physical in its focus, and at times more spiritual. Joseph Campbell admonishes that, “In loving the spiritual, you cannot despise the earthly.”(13) And as long as our spirit is encased in this clothing called “body”, we must learn to use the physicality of our relationships as a means to spiritual progression, rather than dismissing it as a hindrance. But let us not forget, as we experience the roller coaster of these natural forces of attraction and repulsion in this world of matter, what it is that truly drives our relationships: it is either our need to fit in, or our call to rise above. ——————— 1. Alice Hoffman, The Probable Future. New York, Doubleday, 2003, page 223. 2. Cassandra Lorius, Tantric Sex. London, Thorsons, 1999, p. 22. 3. Rumi, The
Essential Rumi. Translated by Coleman Barks with John Moyne. New Jersey,
Castle 4. Ibid., p. 106. 5. Ibid., p. 15. 6. Ibid., p. 105. 7. Osho, The Tantra Experience. Great Britain, element Books Limited, 1994, p. 96. 8. The New American Standard Bible. Iowa Falls, World Bible Publishers, Inc., 1960, p. 1157. 9. Clarissa Pinkola
Estes, Women Who Run With the Wolves. New York, Ballantine Books, 1992,
10. Deepak Chopra, The Way of the Wizard. New York, Harmony Books, 1995, p. 106. 11. Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth. New York, Doubleday, pp. 235-236. 12. Ibid., p. 250. 13. Joseph Campbell, A Joseph Campbell Companion. Edited by Diane K. Osbon. New York, Harper Perennial, p.273. |
