In "The Age of the Obvious," [The Dartmouth, Oct. 10] Abiola Lapite '98, an esteemed columnist, raises some very valid points, the kind of which may go fairly unnoticed from now on, since the preoccupation of these pages will decidedly lean towards the impending presidential elections.
Let me point out from the outset that I neither agree nor disagree with the main thesis of his column, namely, that society has become inexorably mundane in its perceptions of love, specifically, romantic love. It's not a state of affairs that is going to change in the near future and rather than lament about it, I will offer some a simple explanation that might suffice to put the columnist's frustrations to relative rest.
It is common knowledge that society's idea of love has changed a whole lot since the age of the Greeks or feudal Japan. It would be folly to have expected anything less. In an official sense, the vestiges of social classes have almost disappeared and the principle of equality has taken a somewhat divine authority worldwide. The social rules that bound men (and women) to a code of strict moral conduct have disappeared, and in their stead we have freedom of speech and almost unlimited pursuit of happiness. This runs counter to the kind of cloak-and-mask subtlety required of such elegant expressions of love depicted in the poems the columnist chose as examples.
As a consequence of equality, love has lost an attendant direct object, and now it's more of a mutual appreciation, liking or just sheer lust for one another. It is not mere coincidence that the people who wrote those beautiful poems were men. Men loved women and the responsibility lay squarely on their shoulders to initiate, maintain and terminate relationships. They competed for love, and the automatic outcome of such duels was that the winner got the girl (lady in those times). Well, they do that nowadays but it is no longer publicly acceptable for men to fight for women and for the winner to get the girl.
Nowadays the competition takes on complex forms and more than often, it' s a case of who can display a more authentic show of affection rather than raw power. I will venture to say that this is merely a different form of subtlety.
I would ask, at this point, what happened to the women who loved particular men and were desirous of their attention? They mostly suffered in silence. Although the value of love might probably have increased in geometric proportion with time spent waiting and yearning, it is still not justifiable to the modern mind to suffer in silence when you can display your affection towards someone without incurring that awful label of "woman of base repute."
So, has love ceased to hold its high value? I would rather say no. To put it simply, love now embraces a whole range of emotions that, more often than not, center around sexuality. Since society decides the meanings of words, it wouldn't do to forcibly turn the clock around so that love can decisively be divorced from sexuality.
In an age of science and materialism (and I don't necessarily use these terms in their usual negative connotation) direct communication seems to be the key: say what, how and when you want what you want.
Even then, when you do want sex, it is still considered less than dignified to point it out in direct fashion. Perfunctory courtship dances still have to be performed, and I say "perfunctory" because in their nature, they make it quite obvious what you do want. Phrases like "looking for fun" don't leave you expecting heaven from a relationship so you do get pointers as to what you will get and in direct measure, what you should put in.
When it occurs to you that you do want ALL of someone, then you will make it clear one way or another but I am sure it will not be "I want ALL of you, NOW!"
Most likely you will be kind, warm and compassionate to that person. But, who knows? They may reciprocate or they may not.
Direct but subtle nevertheless!
