(this thread is going to have lots of sex. so if the topic bothers you, you should probably stop reading)
I got this book on tape from the library.
Yesterday, I ended up spending an hour waiting in my car for my son to get out of play rehearsal - so I made a lot of progress with this book.
It's interesting how it was written in 1928 and banned from England for sooooo long.
I'm not done with the book (tape?), but I felt like unloading some junk here ....
The thing that gets me about this book is the main character, Connie, is made out to be quite rational. And then when it comes to the game keeper, she can completely change her mind within 30 seconds. And she completely changes her mind within hours and days too.
She has a moment where she loathes all men. Their vulgar bodies and their vulgar urges. Rational men compromised by nature's joke to obsess on doing something utterly irrational. She goes on and on about how the act of sex is disgusting .... then about fifteen seconds later, there is nothing in the world as beautiful as some simple, erotic touch. And then waxes on for pages about how this moment is the most beautiful moment of her life. No, wait, now this moment is the most beautiful ... and so on.
.... I haven't watched broadcast television in years. But I do get the netflix. Yesterday I was watching a show where a girl lost her virginity. They guy seemed like he was going to stick around, but he never called. She was angry. A friend of hers, a much older guy, (a less than tactful guy) told her that men fall in love with women up to the moment of sex. With the act of sex, the man's love subsides and women then fall in love with the man. He stated it as absolute fact. And while that is not an absolute, I think there may be some truth there - at least for the part of the woman. I remember a woman telling me that the vagina must have an enormous, direct connection to the heart. It would seem to be the case for the fictional character connie: in the seconds before sexual contact, she expressed that she could never love the keeper. Moments later she knew in her bones that she would love the keeper forever - far more deeply than any other.
Perhaps the phrase "making love" could be taken quite literally.
Matters of the heart .... emotion ... do throw a mountain of chaos into a rational world. The keeper appears to have tried to find a path to peace. To be alone. A peaceful path that plods on for years and years until he dies a peaceful, graceful death. He equates sex with life. And he appears to hate himself for giving in to his lust. He says things that indicate that he is aware of the high price of pain that must be coming in the pages ahead. The price to be paid for the pleasure he is experiencing now.
Didn't Captain Picard once says that a captain cannot fraternize with the crew?
Maybe because it erodes the authority needed for times of crisis. I wonder if it is something where, for that position, one must be exceptionally rational at all times - have no emotional baggage to compromise the rationality and endanger everybody else.
I've heard this idea used as an argument against sex without marriage. For the man, it is a "hunt". When he gets the woman to agree to have sex, he has succeeded in "bagging his game". On the other hand, the woman has finally agreed to "give her all" to the man she "loves", so, at that point, she has committed herself to that man.
Although, I've heard that in recent years, this idea has changed somewhat. The young women of today apparently are giving sex to men because they are looking for a committment and feel that if they deny sex to their date, the guy will leave them or because they feel obligated to allow their date to have sex as a "thank you" for the time spent together.
JavaBeginnersFaq "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that's why they call it the present." Eleanor Roosevelt
Yes, if one believes that God created Adam and Eve, there's no need to assume that the sexes inevitably must pursue sexual strategies that are at cross-purposes. But if you believe in evolution, than you would be a fool to ignore or belittle the theories of sociobiology which explain that the strategy that best helps a woman's genes become more common in the following generations is not the same strategy that helps a man's genes become dominant.
And genes have their best chance of becoming increasingly common if both the males and females bearing it all pursue their respective sex's most productive strategy. However, this only works if most other people _don't_ do this -- if too many people act selfishly you get a deeply conflicted society whose members are in danger of being replaced by a society in which men and women cooperate better. Therefore, the instinct for optimal sexual strategy must compete with instincts that promote social obedience and religious inhibition -- so that some sort of compromise between men's and women's interests can be enforced.
But the resulting tension produces compelling drama, both in literature and in real life.
Marilyn de Queiroz
Joined: Jul 22, 2000
I see no conflict between these two ideas.
Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Of course, if you liked the book you _must_ see the movie, starring Harlee McBride (1977). But skip the sequel.