College Sex - Philosophy for Everyone: Philosophers With Benefits (15 page)

Indeed, Lucretius believes that sexual activity untainted by passionate love is better than passionate lovemaking. He says “it is undeniable that the pleasure of intercourse is purer for the healthy-minded than for the love- sick” (line 1075). So when college students embroiled in passionate affairs suffer heartache, would an Epicurean advise them to hook up with one (or more) of their friends for casual, loveless sex? Isn’t this precisely a pitch for the convenience of no-strings-attached friends with benefits? Don’t Epicureans believe that Tina Turner’s 1984 single “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” is right insofar as it claims that loveless sex is far better than erotic love, which is inevitably bittersweet and often agony? As tempting as it is to interpret Lucretius to condone loveless sex with pals, I will argue that, from the Epicurean perspective, this is not, in fact, wise for most college students in most situations. Before making that argument, however, further study of the Lucretian pathology of erotic love is needed.

In contrast to the unpenalized sex of non-lovers, Lucretius describes how impassioned lovers rush and fumble in frenzied, clumsy lovemaking, uncertain of what to squeeze and roughly kiss first, often hurting each other, spurred by their erotic madness. Lovers vainly hope that the same body that enflamed their passion can also extinguish it, but the reverse

happens. The more ardent sexplay they have, the more fiercely their hearts crave more. Food and drink replenish physiological voids in the body, but the visual image of a beautiful face is an impalpable image, Lucretius explains; it fills no emptiness in the body and quenches no longing in the heart. Rather, “lovers are deluded by Venus with images: no matter how intently they gaze at the beloved body, they cannot sate their eyes; nor can they remove anything from the velvety limbs that they explore with roving, uncertain hands” (lines 1101–5). But their gazing and groping “is all in vain, since they cannot take away anything from their lover’s body or wholly penetrate it and merge into it” (lines 1110–11). Even after their orgasms, the escape of the deranged lovers from their raging passion is all too brief:

Then the same madness returns, and they have another fit of frenzy: they seek to attain what they desire, but fail to find an effective antidote to their suffering: in such deep doubt do they pine away with an invisible wound. (Lines 1118–21)

Sexual activity only satisfies sexual desire of the body, but passionate love is an invisible wound, a gash in the mind, for which there is no bodily remedy.

Many other ills multiply from love, according to Lucretius. Love con- sumes and exhausts the lover’s strength. His life is ruled by his beloved. Love makes him neglect his duties and ruins his reputation. Love gobbles away his wealth as he buys for her lovely slippers, jewels, gowns, tiaras, imported cloaks, draperies, dainties, banquets, entertainments, drinks, perfumes, and flowers. Notice that with the exception of the fancy foods and drinks that count as objects of natural but non-necessary desires, all these other gifts are objects of vain and empty desires. Consequently, there is no natural limit for purchasing, owning, or wearing such superflu- ous items. They are entirely for show. Neither does gifting them promote the lover’s
ataraxia
in any way, nor does receiving them enhance his belov- ed’s
ataraxia
at all. They are not real benefits. In fact, showering the mis- tress who has mastered his heart with lavish gifts likely reveals rather than eases his feelings of doubt, regret, and insecurity. As Lucretius writes:

Perhaps his conscience experiences a twinge of remorse at the thought of a life spent in sloth and squandered in debauchery; perhaps his mistress has thrown out an ambiguous word and left it embedded in his passionate heart, where it burns like living fire; or perhaps he fancies that her eyes are

wandering too freely, or that she is ogling some other man, while he detects in her face the trace of a smile. (Lines 1135–41)

Jealousies and anxieties like these undoubtedly flare up among college student couples, too.

Romance, Beautiful Illusions, and Sound Minds

So if a college Joey O’Montague finds himself falling passionately in love with a Julie Capulet in his entomology class, what advice would Joey’s Epicurean advisor give him? I suggest that Joey would be sternly cau- tioned against being seduced by the bewitching fairy tales of romance peddled relentlessly by Hollywood and the popular media. Joey ought to rein in his wild-running imagination from insidious fantasies about how he and Julie will crash together in ecstatic union, serenaded by a swoon- ing soundtrack, to become the Brangelina of their campus, self-heroized in their omnipotent, triumphant love. Such is the stuff that dreams are made of,
9
by the movie, television, and music industries that so richly profit by perpetuating these delusions on celluloid and compact discs for mass consumption. Commercialized, fairy tale romance is big business and a monstrous myth. Lucretius warns that images of idyllic, beatified, electrified, passionate love are ephemeral
images
, mirages, incapable of feeding our real, earthly, embodied human relationships but fully capa- ble of poisoning them. Hollywood stars make horrible models for per- sonal relationships among college students (or any other couples, for that matter).To fall prey to the delusion, the vaunted fantasy, that Julie will be for Joey O. what Angelina Jolie is (portrayed by Hollywood to be) for Brad Pitt and vice versa is to bury what could be a healthy, pleasant rela- tionship under an avalanche of utterly unrealistic and ultimately impos- sible expectations. She is no Aphrodite, even if she is a Homecoming Queen. He is no godlike superhunk, even if he is a Homecoming King.

Hollywood filmmakers and Madison Avenue magazine moguls enlist armies of make-up artists and post-production wizards to erase all blem- ishes and tiny wrinkles from the complexions and sculpted bodies digit- ally perfected to bedazzle us. The media-bloated imagination of a college student can do as much for him when he finds a mortal to idolize and enshrine on his pedestal of love. The benighted, lovesick dreamer will be bitterly disappointed when his zealously constructed fantasy of a perfect

goddess is dissolved by the flaws and frailties of what was all along a mere mortal. This is why Lucretius thinks it is easier to avoid being ensnared by erotic love than to free oneself from its nets once entangled. But he believes the dangers of love’s mania can still be escaped unless you pre- vent yourself by deliberately overlooking

all the mental and physical imperfections of the woman for whom you yearn and long. For men who are blinded by passion generally do this and attribute to their mistresses virtues that in reality they do not possess.Thus we find women with numerous defects of body and behavior being fondly loved and held in high esteem. (Lines 1151–6)

To the poor fool deranged by passion, her swarthy skin is “honey-brown,” if she is sloppy and smelly, to him she is “beauty unadorned,” if she is gray-eyed (considered a defect by the ancients), to him she is “a little Athena,” if she is wiry and woody, “a gazelle,” if she’s a dumpy dwarf, “one of the Graces, a charmer,” if a giantess, “a marvel of majesty.” If she stammers, she “has a lisp,” if dumb, she’s “modest,” if a chattering, spite- ful spitfire, she’s “a sparkler,” if she’s wasting away, she’s “slender and willowy,” if she’s half-dead coughing, she’s “delicate.” The bulging and big-breasted is “Ceres suckling Iacchus,” the snub-nosed is “a she-satyr,” the thick-lipped is “kissy-faced” (lines 1159–69). Lovesickness so dis- torts the manic lover’s perception that his beloved’s obvious flaws are hallucinated into traits so lovely that they approach godlike ideals. Love steals the lover away from reality, according to Lucretius.

Contemporary American culture sells different therapies for dissatis- faction with our looks.Today, college students pay for tanning treatments and painful hair removal and bleaching procedures. If Julie C. had more to spend, would she buy Botox injections, skin bleaching, liposuction, or plastic surgeries to alter her breasts, tummy, nose, chin, and eyes, and invest in whatever bodily“corrections” modern medicine sells? Ubiquitous stereotypes of “perfect” physical beauty, especially concerning body shape, brainwash many students into dangerous eating disorders and self-destructive behaviors, including smoking to control weight. Lucretius’ message for us, I suggest, is that for our mental health, we
accept
our bod- ies and safeguard our physical health rather than worry about our looks. What about Brangelina and other hyper-beautiful people? Lucretius insists that even if your beloved is totally gorgeous from head to toe, she isn’t so special for the following reasons: first, there are others like her; second, you have lived without her until now; and third, she behaves no

better than an ugly woman. New beauties, supermodels too, crop up like weeds, and you didn’t and don’t need any of them to live happily. Moreover, since supercouples divorce with the seasons (or faster), their outward beauty fails to reflect their inner characters. The Epicurean les- son is plain. Obsession with physical beauty is a pathological fixation with mere appearance, and such a psychological fixation is a debilitating dis- ease. Planet Hollywood proclaims: image is everything. Lucretius wants to dispel this delusion with the sober wake-up call: image is illusion.

Skip the Sex and Keep the Friend

Lucretius claims that the many ills catalogued are experienced even in steadfast, successful love. But “when love is frustrated and unrequited, the miseries you can spot with your eyes shut are countless” (lines 1142–4). For college students, who generally are less emotionally experi- enced and under considerable academic, social, and sometimes athletic pressures, these miseries can include depression, drinking problems, drug abuse, eating disorders, crippling driving accidents, attempted sui- cide, and suicide.
10
These troubles ruin one’s academic progress and worse. Therefore, the wise Epicurean advice is for Joey O. and Julie C. to cool it, to stay focused on their studies, to prepare for and attend every class, to take notes attentively and participate in class, and to complete and turn in their assignments on time. Better for them to remain study buddies, at least until the semester ends.

What if they really like each other a lot? I propose that the Epicureans would consider wanting friends to be in the class of natural desires nec- essary for happiness. Friendship is hugely important for achieving
ataraxia
. Epicurus beams about it: “Friendship dances through the world bidding us all to awaken to the recognition of happiness.”
11
But friends are not just for happy times. When college students are dis- traught, to whom do they turn? When they need a sympathetic ear or a shoulder to lean on, on whom do they rely? When they are in conflict with their parents or siblings or bosses or co-workers, who provides emotional support? Amid romantic disasters so devastating that they may even consider suicide, who is there to help them regain perspective? Their friends, naturally. As Epicurus advises, “Of the things which wis- dom provides for the blessedness of one’s whole life, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship.”
12

Desires to engage in sex with others are natural but not necessary for life, for freeing the body from troubles, or for happiness. Desires to have friends are natural and necessary for happiness. So I argue that the Epicureans would advise college students to avoid having sex with their friends in order to protect their friendships. Epicurus writes: “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; but remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for.”
13
As tempting as it may be to upgrade a friend to a friend with benefits, friendships can be counted on to last much longer than either bouts of sexual passion or the flings which they punctuate. The conclusion of Book Four of
De Rerum Natura
seems to lend support to my argument. Lucretius explains that “a woman with little pretension to beauty” can, by what she does, by her obliging, gentle, and pleasing conduct, and by “the neatness of her person,” accustom a man to spend his life with her (lines 1277–82). He adds that “mere habit generates love” (line 1283). I understand this kind of love not to be the tumultuous, crazed love of sexual passion, but rather the painless, soothing, abiding love of a per- son. This suggests that personable, amiable conduct, consistently
friendly
behavior, can sometimes create the kind of love upon which a strong, lasting marriage is founded. The best lifelong companions more often emerge from a group of good friends than from the stage of a beauty pageant. Perhaps a key insight of Epicurean philosophy is that good friends are far more reliable, and so ultimately more desirable, than good sex. If so, the wise Epicurean chooses to populate his tran- quil, happy life not with friends with benefits, but with friends. Friends
are
the real benefits.

NOTES

1. I thank Tim O’Keefe, Jeffrey Hause, Al Spangler, and Berel Dov Lerner for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.
   

2. Epicurus,
   Principal Doctrine
   VIII, in Brad Inwood and L. P. Gerson (eds.)
   The Epicurus Reader: SelectedWritings and Testimonia
   (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994), p. 32.
   

3. See Tim O’Keefe, “Epicurus,”
   The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
   , availa- ble online at www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur
   .htm (accessed July 9, 2009).
   

4. Vatican Saying
   33 reads: “The cry of the flesh: not to be hungry, not to be thirsty, not to be cold. For if someone has these things and is confident of having them in the future, he might contend even with [Zeus] for happiness.” In Inwood and Gerson,
   The Epicurus Reader
   , p. 38.
   

5. Epicurus says “we believe that … if we do not have a lot we can make do with few, being genuinely convinced that those who least need extravagance enjoy it most.”
   Letter to Menoeceus
   130, in Inwood and Gerson,
   The Epicurus Reader
   , p. 30.
   

6. Epicurus,
   Vatican Saying
   LI in R. M. Geer (ed.)
   Letters, Principal Doctrines, andVatican Sayings
   (New York: Macmillan, 1985), pp. 69–70.
   

7. My explication of Lucretius owes much to Robert D. Brown,
   Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287
   (Leiden: Brill, 1987).
   

8. Lucretius,
   On the Nature of Things
   , ed. M. F. Smith (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), p. 128. All subsequent quotations of Lucretius are from this edition and are cited parenthetically.
   

9. Respect for director John Huston (rather than spotty memory of Shakespeare) compels me to follow Humphrey Bogart’s famous last line in
   The Maltese Falcon
   (1941) instead of Prospero’s original line: “We are such stuff / As dreams are made on” in
   The Tempest
   , Act 4, Scene 1, lines 156–7.
   

10. For a physically healthy young adult to kill himself out of depression or despair would be unwise and unwarranted, according to Epicurus: “But the many … sometimes choose [death] as a relief from the bad things in life. But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him.”
    Letter to Menoeceus
    125–6, in Inwood and Gerson,
    The Epicurus Reader
    ,
    

    p. 29. “He is utterly small-minded for whom there are many plausible rea- sons for committing suicide.”
    Vatican Saying
    XXXVIII, in Inwood and Gerson,
    The Epicurus Reader
    , p. 38.
    

11. Epicurus,
    Vatican Saying
    LII, in Geer,
    Letters, Principal Doctrines, andVatican Sayings
    , p. 70.
    

12. Epicurus,
    Principal Doctrine
    XXVII, in Inwood and Gerson,
    The Epicurus Reader
    , p. 34.
    

13. Epicurus,
    Vatican Saying
    XXXV, in Geer,
    Letters, Principal Doctrines, and Vatican Sayings
    , p. 68.