Do we remember how it was when we were teenagers? We dreamed of kissing and holding hands, and just the thought of her looking at you made you giddy? Remember how we dreamed of simple contact, which would give way to smiles and happiness?
All that means nothing anymore, as we see fully naked eve, unabashed, flaunting it all on the screen. Base desires give way to meaningless relationships that lead to marriage being just two people sharing a room, with no intimacy involved.
With the loss of contact, of eros, of simple joy, walls appear, there is no sharing, no communication, no joy, just two people existing.
Just two people, one feeling alone, and one browsing on the phone.
It is worth nothing, I think, that one must be careful if they wish to facilitate more masculine/feminine aspects of themselves (i.e., men wanting to be more masculine; women wanting to be more feminine). I say 'careful' because if we stray too far into earthly stereotypes then we risk becoming inauthentic and imbalanced--possibly making social interactions with the opposite sex even more difficult. If we want to cultivate these things, then I think we should focus on the "divine" masculine/feminine--the pure versions of ambition, nurturing, etc.
As far as I can tell, no organized religion gives any real guidance on this and obviously nobody in the mainstream culture is helpful here. I think that literature provides offers best models, but since nobody reads anymore, everyone is lost.
On paragons of religious masculinity, Fr. Donald Calloway has a good book called "Consecration to St. Joseph" which I would recommend as something that meant a lot to me.
Fr. Calloway himself is an interesting figure. Before his conversion he ran drugs for the Yakuza, after growing up on a US Army base in Japan. There's a good interview with Matt Fradd about it.
Seeking the divine ultimately is a personal thing--which has both pros and cons. One one hand, you can find peace with your own soul. On the other hand...it really sucks when you just need actionable guidance.
I sway towards deism (which is honestly like going solo mode in a ridiculously difficult video game) so the only guidance one can find is by digging through other religious teachings. Though, I have considered finding a Catholic church as of late to seek guidance on a few things!
How fortunate we are that woman was made for man, and that we have the Sacrament of Marriage, so that husband and wife may know one another, and know the Lord.
Hello Johann. Provocative to bring together Evola and John Paul II. I agree with you regarding the Vitalists and their distorted, profane concept of Eros. I felt a certain sadness reading this piece with the realization it brought of how far we are today from the erotic ideal. If one spends too much time with Evola, one is tempted to fall into despair in light of the current state of things. I attribute this partly to his formalism. He presents traditional metaphysical doctrines as if those were the true blueprints and models of social structures and human behaviour. I don't know if I can always follow him there; I see instead a gulf between his ideal and historical reality. His conception of ideal human relations is often humourless and indeed inhuman. A reason why, amidst these somber metaphysical abstractions, I felt relief at your mention of "Gio Scottii-posting, e-girls flashing up in sonnenrad edits, BAP blasting generously endowed anime girls at his legion of followers." Yes, perhaps BAP is profane, but his humour gives him an advantage over the Evolian (cope-y) serious. That being said, I think Evola may yet have the last laugh.
Yes, one of the major issues with radical thinkers in our sphere is that so few follow their ideals in practice. This is not to say that there isn't value and truth there - it's to say that those advocating it must devote themselves to testing it in real space. This is why I have respect for serious Christians - they often practice what they preach, and make major sacrifices to do so
What a fantastic and engaging article. It is sad to say that most will never experience a true eros: modern culture has completely destroyed it with its constant pummeling (excuse the pun) of sex in society 24/7. We’ve truly lost something that is divine.
Would love for you to expand more on the ideal man/woman dynamic, especially in relation to Platonic forms. That the Church has dropped the ball on this is surprising given how much Platonism influenced early Christianity. I find the virility of medieval Christian knights as the ideal masculine form.
Once i thought sex would save my depression, and i hooked up with two prostitutes one after the other. I also drank a fair bit of whiskey that night. I woke up feeling a different kind of hangover. A moral hangover. I remember just utterly hating myself, and how bad the sex with those supposed professionals was. Glad i found this piece and while I may not agree with everything you wrote, i agree that sex for the sake of sex is just a void.
Also I'm a big fan of Evola and i'm not sure he'd appreciate being in the same article as a Pope. Catholics always amaze me haha.
Evola had a complex relationship with Catholicism -
“If I later came to recognize the valid, ‘traditional’ aspects of Catholicism, this was merely from an intellectual and objective perspective: the essence of Christianity never struck any deep chord in me. And while l recognized the validity of Catholicism as a positive religion, I also personally witnessed the disgraceful effects of its dissolution into emotional, sentimental and moralistic forms in the context of modern bourgeois society, which is marked by Catholicism’s lack of interest in emphasizing true holiness and transcendence, symbols, rites and sacraments.”
i remember that line very well. I think it's from one of his least read books Men amongst Ruins. Basically he is saying catholicism has potential but doesn't live up to it (modernly). I too have a complex relationship with catholicism. Altho i absolutely love the feeling of going to church and i remember the sentiment of bliss from praying, i just cannot get over the fact that i'm was not wired to believe in jesus. I was raised atheist and best i can do is agnostic. Its very hard to rewire your brain, and god knows i've tried. Atheist parents man, they robbed me of so much.
Well in that case I appreciate the like and comment even more!
This piece isn’t a dry condemnation of impropriety - it’s intended as an exhortation to discover the ‘divine’ aspects of eros. In that sense it’s trying to convey a sense of intense and wondrous possibilities, rather than shame and the like. So perhaps not what you were expecting.
Not sure if I agree with this. The pagan Greeks and Romans had a much healthier attitude toward sex than Christianity, as do modern secular people. Much of this "dating problem" among young people should be blamed on helicopter parenting and economic insecurity, not on sexualized media. If anything, the Christian "virtue" of chastity would only worsen the problem. Interesting article nonetheless, good choice of topic.
Maybe you can help me understand this. The Catholic teaching on sex seems to be, “you can try to make choices about how many children to have, but you can’t use rational means to make that happen. So if you’re incredible fertile and don’t think more children is good for your family, then the only sin free path is give up any form of sexuality.”
What am I missing or failing to understand there? I agree with the idea that sexual union should be an act of prayer. But what happens if we conclude that having more children would make us worse parents? Should we all be doing semen retention?
The Church teaches that married couples can space out the birth of children due to certain circumstances, e.g. costs associated with raising children. However, children are a gift from God and couples should not prolong natural family planning past necessity.
The Catholic position is that you can only intentionally limit the number of children you have if there is serious reason to do so (ie. critical health or material reasons). If there is serious reason, then you can use rational means to limit conception.
If having more children would make you worse parents, then the resolution of that issue would be reflect, perhaps under the guidance of a Spiritual Director - on why that is, and try to correct it, instead of limiting the number of souls that we bring into existence to rightfully worship God.
Re. semen retention: there is a form of celibate marriage called a Josephite marriage, but this is an extremely rare and exceptional calling, not a normal one. It's a life altering decision akin to becoming a monk or a nun.
This isn't a complete reflection of church teaching - which is that all sexuality should be 'open' to procreation - ie. you're happy with having another child if God gives you one. But there's no need to avoid sex if that isn't possible, due to fertility issues, or age, or it's the wrong time in the woman's cycle. So there's no need to be very tactical or intentional about it. Sex is good and procreation is good. Closing off your heart to procreation - which is an essential aspect of sex - and then continuing to have it anyway is bad though
Do we remember how it was when we were teenagers? We dreamed of kissing and holding hands, and just the thought of her looking at you made you giddy? Remember how we dreamed of simple contact, which would give way to smiles and happiness?
All that means nothing anymore, as we see fully naked eve, unabashed, flaunting it all on the screen. Base desires give way to meaningless relationships that lead to marriage being just two people sharing a room, with no intimacy involved.
With the loss of contact, of eros, of simple joy, walls appear, there is no sharing, no communication, no joy, just two people existing.
Just two people, one feeling alone, and one browsing on the phone.
Christians should demand that porn be banned
It is worth nothing, I think, that one must be careful if they wish to facilitate more masculine/feminine aspects of themselves (i.e., men wanting to be more masculine; women wanting to be more feminine). I say 'careful' because if we stray too far into earthly stereotypes then we risk becoming inauthentic and imbalanced--possibly making social interactions with the opposite sex even more difficult. If we want to cultivate these things, then I think we should focus on the "divine" masculine/feminine--the pure versions of ambition, nurturing, etc.
Interesting perspective - I think you’re right
As far as I can tell, no organized religion gives any real guidance on this and obviously nobody in the mainstream culture is helpful here. I think that literature provides offers best models, but since nobody reads anymore, everyone is lost.
On paragons of religious masculinity, Fr. Donald Calloway has a good book called "Consecration to St. Joseph" which I would recommend as something that meant a lot to me.
Fr. Calloway himself is an interesting figure. Before his conversion he ran drugs for the Yakuza, after growing up on a US Army base in Japan. There's a good interview with Matt Fradd about it.
Unfortunately, this is so true.
Seeking the divine ultimately is a personal thing--which has both pros and cons. One one hand, you can find peace with your own soul. On the other hand...it really sucks when you just need actionable guidance.
In Catholicism we have the concept of a Spiritual Director. Not sure what faith you follow, but do you not have an equivalent?
I sway towards deism (which is honestly like going solo mode in a ridiculously difficult video game) so the only guidance one can find is by digging through other religious teachings. Though, I have considered finding a Catholic church as of late to seek guidance on a few things!
I can't encourage you enough to do that!
I used to teach my high school boys, you need to want *her* not *it*.
Yes, this is a nice framing
Beautiful article!
How fortunate we are that woman was made for man, and that we have the Sacrament of Marriage, so that husband and wife may know one another, and know the Lord.
Thanks for the important reminders in this essay.
Thank you - and Amen
Hello Johann. Provocative to bring together Evola and John Paul II. I agree with you regarding the Vitalists and their distorted, profane concept of Eros. I felt a certain sadness reading this piece with the realization it brought of how far we are today from the erotic ideal. If one spends too much time with Evola, one is tempted to fall into despair in light of the current state of things. I attribute this partly to his formalism. He presents traditional metaphysical doctrines as if those were the true blueprints and models of social structures and human behaviour. I don't know if I can always follow him there; I see instead a gulf between his ideal and historical reality. His conception of ideal human relations is often humourless and indeed inhuman. A reason why, amidst these somber metaphysical abstractions, I felt relief at your mention of "Gio Scottii-posting, e-girls flashing up in sonnenrad edits, BAP blasting generously endowed anime girls at his legion of followers." Yes, perhaps BAP is profane, but his humour gives him an advantage over the Evolian (cope-y) serious. That being said, I think Evola may yet have the last laugh.
Yes, one of the major issues with radical thinkers in our sphere is that so few follow their ideals in practice. This is not to say that there isn't value and truth there - it's to say that those advocating it must devote themselves to testing it in real space. This is why I have respect for serious Christians - they often practice what they preach, and make major sacrifices to do so
What a fantastic and engaging article. It is sad to say that most will never experience a true eros: modern culture has completely destroyed it with its constant pummeling (excuse the pun) of sex in society 24/7. We’ve truly lost something that is divine.
Would love for you to expand more on the ideal man/woman dynamic, especially in relation to Platonic forms. That the Church has dropped the ball on this is surprising given how much Platonism influenced early Christianity. I find the virility of medieval Christian knights as the ideal masculine form.
Great idea for an essay! And I should ban you for that pun
I deserve that lol
Once i thought sex would save my depression, and i hooked up with two prostitutes one after the other. I also drank a fair bit of whiskey that night. I woke up feeling a different kind of hangover. A moral hangover. I remember just utterly hating myself, and how bad the sex with those supposed professionals was. Glad i found this piece and while I may not agree with everything you wrote, i agree that sex for the sake of sex is just a void.
Also I'm a big fan of Evola and i'm not sure he'd appreciate being in the same article as a Pope. Catholics always amaze me haha.
I'm glad it resonated with you.
Evola had a complex relationship with Catholicism -
“If I later came to recognize the valid, ‘traditional’ aspects of Catholicism, this was merely from an intellectual and objective perspective: the essence of Christianity never struck any deep chord in me. And while l recognized the validity of Catholicism as a positive religion, I also personally witnessed the disgraceful effects of its dissolution into emotional, sentimental and moralistic forms in the context of modern bourgeois society, which is marked by Catholicism’s lack of interest in emphasizing true holiness and transcendence, symbols, rites and sacraments.”
i remember that line very well. I think it's from one of his least read books Men amongst Ruins. Basically he is saying catholicism has potential but doesn't live up to it (modernly). I too have a complex relationship with catholicism. Altho i absolutely love the feeling of going to church and i remember the sentiment of bliss from praying, i just cannot get over the fact that i'm was not wired to believe in jesus. I was raised atheist and best i can do is agnostic. Its very hard to rewire your brain, and god knows i've tried. Atheist parents man, they robbed me of so much.
God is more powerful than your atheist parents - don't lose hope
South Korea is a demographic disaster. North Korea is a demographic success.
I was also taken away by how good Evola’s writing is I didn’t expect that.
He's a very good writer. His ideas are sometimes overly influenced by his desire to be transgressive and mysterious though
i didn't read this article because i don't like reading about Christian perspective on lust
for the exact same reason, I just read "Confessions" by St. Augustine and I skipped all the sections about his struggles with horniness
i guess I don't like psychoanalyzing that part of myself for whatever reason
Well in that case I appreciate the like and comment even more!
This piece isn’t a dry condemnation of impropriety - it’s intended as an exhortation to discover the ‘divine’ aspects of eros. In that sense it’s trying to convey a sense of intense and wondrous possibilities, rather than shame and the like. So perhaps not what you were expecting.
Maybe do give it a try!
Not sure if I agree with this. The pagan Greeks and Romans had a much healthier attitude toward sex than Christianity, as do modern secular people. Much of this "dating problem" among young people should be blamed on helicopter parenting and economic insecurity, not on sexualized media. If anything, the Christian "virtue" of chastity would only worsen the problem. Interesting article nonetheless, good choice of topic.
Excellent post
Thank you, this and the restack really mean a lot Dave!
This was fantastic. Great insight and really thoughtful!
Thank you!
Maybe you can help me understand this. The Catholic teaching on sex seems to be, “you can try to make choices about how many children to have, but you can’t use rational means to make that happen. So if you’re incredible fertile and don’t think more children is good for your family, then the only sin free path is give up any form of sexuality.”
What am I missing or failing to understand there? I agree with the idea that sexual union should be an act of prayer. But what happens if we conclude that having more children would make us worse parents? Should we all be doing semen retention?
The Church teaches that married couples can space out the birth of children due to certain circumstances, e.g. costs associated with raising children. However, children are a gift from God and couples should not prolong natural family planning past necessity.
Yes, to build on what Ancestral Fatherhood said:
The Catholic position is that you can only intentionally limit the number of children you have if there is serious reason to do so (ie. critical health or material reasons). If there is serious reason, then you can use rational means to limit conception.
If having more children would make you worse parents, then the resolution of that issue would be reflect, perhaps under the guidance of a Spiritual Director - on why that is, and try to correct it, instead of limiting the number of souls that we bring into existence to rightfully worship God.
Re. semen retention: there is a form of celibate marriage called a Josephite marriage, but this is an extremely rare and exceptional calling, not a normal one. It's a life altering decision akin to becoming a monk or a nun.
Then the marriage doesn't sound viable, but they should discuss with a spiritual director
This isn't a complete reflection of church teaching - which is that all sexuality should be 'open' to procreation - ie. you're happy with having another child if God gives you one. But there's no need to avoid sex if that isn't possible, due to fertility issues, or age, or it's the wrong time in the woman's cycle. So there's no need to be very tactical or intentional about it. Sex is good and procreation is good. Closing off your heart to procreation - which is an essential aspect of sex - and then continuing to have it anyway is bad though
Great essay
Appreciate it
This was excellent.
Thank you!