The nature of erotic desire. Everywhere where romanticism has entered, there seems to be a crisis of desire. A crisis of desire, as in owning the wanting. Our need for security and our need for adventure into one relationship, but the crisis of desire is often a crisis of the imagination.
So if there is a verb, for me, that comes with love, it’s “to have.”And if there is a verb that comes with desire, it is “to want.” In love, we want to have, we want to know the beloved. We want to minimize the distance. We want to contract that gap. We want to neutralize the tensions. We want closeness. But in desire, we tend to not really want to go back to the places we’ve already gone. Forgone conclusion does not keep our interest. In desire, we want an Other somebody on the other side that we can go visit, that we can go spend some time with that we can go see what goes on in their red-light district. You know? In desire, we want a bridge to cross. Or in other words, I sometimes say, fire needs air. Desire needs space. And when it’s said like that, it’s often quite abstract.
What is most interesting is that there is no neediness in desire. Nobody needs anybody. There is no caretaking in desire. Caretaking is mightily loving. It’s a powerful anti-aphrodisiac. And so is neediness. ( this fascinates because needs=drives, which is why we are there, but it says anyone would do when what we really want is a specific person)
1 when we are apart – absence and longing
2 when I look at my partner radiant and confident – mysterious and elusive
3 when there is novelty. Sex isn’t something you do, it is a place you go.