Click here to see a List of Swedenborg's Writings

Conjugial Love
& The Psychobiology of Jealousy                     

The Spiritual Psycho-Physiology of Marriage

Swedenborg describes the spiritual physiology of being married. I have rendered this in two diagrams. Figure 1 shows the mental structure of unmarried men and women and Figure 2 shows the mental structure of married partners.

Ten Reasons for the Fall of Marriage

Here are the indications of The Fall of our Character in today's marriages:

1. When we men reject a higher power than ourselves and have no regard for Divine authority. This makes it impossible for us to listen to our wives' moral wisdom, without which we can only love ourselves. This is the meaning of the Adam and Eve Parable.

2. When we men elevate male feelings above female feelings and above children's feelings. This maintains an inverted (or perverted) order in the world. Female feelings are more interior, more spiritual, more perceptive. The function of this is to give men the motivation, opportunity, and spiritual technology to turn inward. By turning inward through the wife, we men become regenerate husbands -- the old self is inhibited and disarmed, made harmless and inoperative. The new self is the regenerated self. This new husband perceives through his wife, not through himself. He thinks and reasons as if his wife were always present with him, never absent. This is known in correspondences as "one flesh," meaning, one mind-ed-ness.

3. When we men consider the self above all. This forces us into a false reflection of reality. In this state of spiritual insanity, we cannot be regenerated. In other words, we cannot extirpate ourselves from maladaptive interpersonal habits. We continue on a cumulative downward spiral of spiritual insanity called "hell." However, when we acknowledge a higher power than the self, we are faced with the living, saving, redemptive idea of obedience to the Divine. Obedience to the wife's moral integrity and perceptive skills becomes obedience to the Divine. This has been provided from the Divine. It is the Divine Psychotherapy provided for our regeneration from the inherited state of mind called the Fall of Man. This obedience to the wife is our work of character reformation as husbands, that is, our spiritual regeneration -- in other words, our highway to heaven.

4. When we men refuse to care about others' feelings. This keeps us from reforming from within. "We die in our sin", means that our character is not regenerated, but remains evil, or spiritually insane, until death or our passing into the spiritual world. The consequences of entering the spiritual world in an unregenerate state are awful! It brings us to a life composed of the worst kinds of mental states imaginable called "the hells." Swedenborg's eyewitness reports cover many details about hellish mental states. These he called by various terms such as "devils," "satans," "sirens," "evil spirits," "genii," "monsters," "beasts," "wolves," "bats," and many other such negative terms, each of which represents a particular and distinct type of character evil or mental irrationality. These are the miserable states of mind that we choose to remain in forever, compulsed by habit and obsessed with degenerative interests. Swedenborg's observations show that hellish states are on a never ending downward spiral of misery and degeneration. Anyone who takes these observations seriously empower themselves with the mental technology that is powerful enough to motivate them to regenerate!

5. When we men blame women for our own feelings. This maintains us within a male point of view, unable to break out into authenticity and caring. Instead, we can find the manly courage to see our feelings as self-generated rather than wife-generated. As we leave our wife totally blameless, we receive insight from the Divine so that we can perceive how our irrational self brings us to the delusion that we are just reacting to something the wife is doing wrong. This is our delusion: I feel bad because my wife is doing something wrong. When we leave our wife blameless, however, the delusion is lifted and we can correctly and objectively perceive that our bad feelings are self-generated. How? By the way we falsely reason, and by refusing to listen to our wife who is not delusional, who reasons wisely, and loves her husband like herself or more than herself.

6. When we men lack love and caring. This keeps us cold, unable to relate, communicate, empathize and sympathize. Thus, we are incomplete persons. We act like immature children, but much more powerful and wicked. However, we can gain warmth from our wife by loving her and being obedient to her sphere of love and managerial leadership in the partnership. The more we men put ourselves in congruence or harmony with the sphere of our wife, the more we grow warm, hot, passionate, romantic, idealistic, noble -- in short, real men.

7. When we men insist on male dominance. This makes us harsh, cruel, and mean, thus, unattractive and difficult to live with and be liked. Instead, if we let women determine our style of interaction, we men turn attractive, easy to get along with, and fun to be with. As husbands we can become our wife's best friend and lover at the same time!

8. When we men are single-mindedly full of logic-truth as against love-truth. This insures that we remain in an external state unable to rid ourselves of our inherited and acquired evils in our character and mental make-up. However when we adopt and model and love the kind of truth called love-truth, then we come into congruence and harmony with our wife's mental or spiritual sphere.

9. When we men elevate the desire to dominate above all other desires or motives. This shuts off any possibility for reform and change. This desire to dominate, Swedenborg calls "man's ruling love." Though women also inherit this character problem, the mechanism for their reformation is different than ours (to be discussed elsewhere). We men give in to this love of ruling on both a conscious and sub-conscious level. At the conscious level, we feel superior to women in general. At the sub-conscious level, society gives us an automatic advantage by favoring men over women in a multiplicity of ways -- by the way we talk and act all the time. Obeying the wife's desires gives us men the ability to dismantle our inherited desire to dominate women at any cost. To dominate women means things like this: who gets to choose the topic, the focus, and the style of verbal exchanges; or, whose idea gets to be carried out in most of their decisions and activities. If it is the man, then he is ruling over her. If it is the woman, then he is behaving like a true husband.

10. When we men minimize the desire to conjoin ourselves inwardly or mentally with our wife. This prevents the internal marriage, or conjugial, from becoming actual in our lives. Husbands may feel proud and protective of their wife, which is good, but it is not enough. At first we want to protect our wife from others for our own sake, such as out of pride or jealousy. This is an external relationship or conjunction with the wife. And the relationship remains external, with lots of unpleasant and desperate symptoms, until the husband makes it a priority in his mind to to conjoin himself inwardly with his wife. With a desire for inward conjunction, we can acquire the habit of behaving so as never to exit from the wife's sphere of mental or spiritual influence. This means that her thoughts and ways of reasoning, and her affections and styles of acting, are automatically and pleasantly induced upon the husband. Their two spheres now overlap in harmony and produce that wonderful heaven called conjugial love.

Are you ready to see a list of 100 bad behaviors we do to control our wife and suffocate her?  Click here.   Or would you prefer to see my confession story as a husband?  Then click here.

CL 360. It shall now be told how love, when attacked, is enkindled and inflamed into zeal, as fire is enkindled into a flame. Love resides in man's will; but it is enkindled, not in the will, but in the understanding. In the will it is like fire, and in the understanding like a flame. In the will, love knows nothing about itself, for there it has no sensation of itself; nor does it there act of itself. Sensation and action are effected in the understanding and its thought. Therefore, when love is attacked, it rouses itself to anger in the understanding, this being done by means of various reasonings. These reasonings are like sticks of wood which the fire kindles and which then burn. Thus they are like so much fuel or so much combustible material from which comes the above-mentioned spiritual flame, of which there is much variety.

CL 361. The reason why a man is on fire when his love is attacked shall now be disclosed. From its creation, the human form in its inmosts is a form of love and wisdom. In man, all affections of love and thence all perceptions of wisdom are arranged in most perfect order so that together they make a unanimous whole and thus a one. These affections and perceptions are substantiate, substances being their subjects. Since, therefore, the human form is composed of them, it is plain that if the love is attacked, then, in an instant or simultaneously, the whole form is attacked together with each and every thing therein. From creation it is implanted in all living things to will to remain in their own form. Therefore the whole structure wills this from its several parts, and the parts from the whole. Hence, when the love is attacked, it defends itself by its understanding, and the understanding by things rational and imaginative whereby it represents to itself the outcome; and, more especially, by those things which make one with the love which is attacked. Were this not done, the whole form would fall asunder because of the loss of that love. [2] Hence then it is, that in order to resist attacks, love hardens the substances of its form and erects them into crests, as it were, being so many pricks; that is to say, it bristles up. Such is that exasperation of love which is called zeal. Therefore, if there is no opportunity to resist, anxiety arises, and grief; for the love foresees the extinction of its interior life together with the delights thereof. On the other hand, if the love is favored and soothed, the form relaxes, softens, dilates; and the substances of the form become smooth, bland, gentle, and alluring.

CL 362. III. THAT A MAN'S ZEAL IS SUCH AS HIS LOVE IS, THUS OF ONE KIND WITH HIM WHOSE LOVE IS GOOD, AND OF ANOTHER WITH HIM WHOSE LOVE IS EVIL. Since zeal is the zeal of love, it follows that it is such as the love is; and since in general there are two loves, the love of good and thence of truth, and the love of evil and thence of falsity, therefore, in general, there is a zeal for good and thence for truth, and a zeal for evil and thence for falsity. It should be known, however, that both loves are of infinite variety. This is manifestly evident from the angels of heaven and the spirits of hell. In the spiritual world, both the latter and the former are forms of their love, and yet there is not a single angel of heaven or a single spirit of hell absolutely like any other as to face, speech, walk, gesture, or manner, nor indeed can there be to all eternity, howsoever many the myriads of myriads into which they may be multiplied. Such being the case with the forms of love, it is evident that the loves themselves are of infinite variety. It is the same with zeal, zeal being the zeal of love; that is to say, the zeal of one cannot be absolutely like or the same as the zeal of another. In general, there is the zeal of good love and the zeal of evil love.

CL 363. IV. THAT IN OUTER MANIFESTATION, THE ZEAL OF A GOOD LOVE AND THE ZEAL OF AN EVIL LOVE ARE ALIKE, BUT INWARDLY THEY ARE WHOLLY UNLIKE. With every man, zeal in its outer manifestation appears as anger and wrath; for it is love enkindled and inflamed for the protection of itself against a violator and for the removal of that violator. The reason why the zeal of a good love and the zeal of an evil love appear alike in outer manifestation is because in both cases, when there is love in the zeal, it is in flames; but with a good man, it is in flames only in its outer manifestation, while with an evil man, it is in flames both outwardly and inwardly; and when the internals are not seen, the zeals appear alike in their outer manifestation. That inwardly they are wholly unlike will be seen in the article next following. That in its outer manifestation zeal appears like anger and wrath, can be seen and heard in all cases when men speak and act from zeal. When a priest, for instance, preaches from zeal, the sound of his voice is loud, vehement, sharp, and harsh, he grows hot in the face and perspires, towers up, beats the pulpit, and calls forth fire from hell against evil-doers. Many others act in a similar way.

CL 364. In order to acquire a distinct idea of zeal with the good and with the evil, and of their dissimilarity, it is necessary to form some idea respecting internals and externals with men. That this may be formed, take the idea of the vulgar respecting them, for this is for the common people also. The matter can then be illustrated by nuts or almonds and their kernels. With the good, the internals are like inner kernels, in all their perfection and goodness, enclosed in their usual and natural shell. With the evil it is altogether different. Their internals are like kernels, either inedible because of their bitterness, or rotted or worm-eaten; but their externals are like coverings or shells, either like their natural shells, or reddish like shell-fish, or many-hued like iris stones. Such is their external appearance within which lie concealed the internals mentioned above. It is the same with their zeal.

CL 365. V. THAT INWARDLY IN THE ZEAL OF A GOOD LOVE LIE LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP, BUT INWARDLY IN THE ZEAL OF AN EVIL LOVE LIE HATRED AND REVENGE. It was said that in outer manifestation zeal appears as anger and wrath, both with those who are in a good love and with those who are in an evil; but because the internals differ, the anger and wrath also differ. The differences are: I. The zeal of a good love is as a heavenly flame which never bursts out against another but only defends itself; and its defense against an evil man is as a defense while the latter is rushing into the fire and being burned. But the zeal of an evil love is like an infernal flame which bursts out of itself and rushes upon another and wills to consume him. 2. The zeal of a good love instantly dies down and becomes mild when the assailant withdraws from the attack; but the zeal of an evil love persists and is not extinguished. 3. The reason is because the internal of him who is in the love of good is in itself mild, bland, friendly, and benevolent. Therefore, while, for the purpose of defending itself, his external is rough, bristles up, and erects itself and so acts with severity, yet it is tempered by means of the good in which is his internal. Not so with the evil. With them the internal is inimical, fierce, hard, breathing hatred and revenge, and it feeds itself on the delights of these passions. Even hen there is reconciliation these passions are still latent, like fire in the embers beneath the ashes; and these fires break out, if not in this world yet after death.

CL 366. Because in outer manifestation zeal with a good man and zeal with an evil appear to be alike; and because the ultimate sense of the word consists of correspondences and appearances; therefore, in the word it is often said of Jehovah, that He is angry, is wrathful, avenges, punishes, casts into hell, besides many other expressions which are the appearances of zeal in its outer manifestation. For the same reason, He is called jealous, when yet in Him is not the least shade of anger, wrath, and vengeance, He being mercy, grace, and clemency itself, thus good itself, in Whom nothing of the kind is possible. But of these matters, see more in the work on HEAVEN AND HELL, nos. 545-50, and in THE APOCALYPSE REVEALED, nos. 494, 498, 525, 714, 806.

CL 367. VI. THAT THE ZEAL OF CONJUGIAL LOVE IS CALLED JEALOUSY. The zeal for love truly conjugial is the zeal of zeals inasmuch as the love is the love of loves, and its delights, for which also it is zealous, the delights of delights; for, as shown above [no. 64], that love is the chief of all loves. The reason is because that love induces on the wife the form of love, and on the husband the form of wisdom, and from these forms united into a one, nothing else can proceed but what savors of wisdom and at the same time of love. Since the zeal of conjugial love is the zeal of zeals, therefore it is called by a new name, zelotypia,* in that it is the very type of zeal.

CL 368. VII. THAT JEALOUSY IS AS A FIRE BLAZING OUT AGAINST THOSE WHO MOLEST THE LOVE WITH THE PARTNER; AND THAT IT IS A DREADFUL FEAR FOR THE LOSS OF THAT LOVE. Here the jealousy of those who are in spiritual love with their partner is treated of; in the following article, the jealousy of those who are in natural love; and after that, the jealousy of those who are in love truly conjugial. With those who are in spiritual love there are various jealousies because various loves, for there is not a single love, whether spiritual or natural, which is ever the same with any two persons, still less with many. [2] That spiritual jealousy, that is, jealousy with the spiritual, is as a fire blazing out against those who molest their conjugial love, is because with them the principle or beginning of that love is in the internals of each partner, and from its principle, their love follows the principiates to their ultimates; and from these, and at the same time from firsts, the intermediates which are of the mind and body are held in lovely connection. In their marriage, such persons, being spiritual, look to union as an end, and therein to spiritual rest and its amenities. Now because they have rejected disunion from their animus, their jealousy is like a fire stirred up and darting out against those who molest. [3] It is also as a dreadful fear, because the intention of their spiritual love is that they be a one, and if there exists a falling away, or if an appearance of separation occurs, there comes fear--a dreadful fear, as when two parts which are united together are being torn asunder. This description of jealousy was given me from heaven by those who are in spiritual conjugial love; for there is natural conjugial love, spiritual conjugial love, and celestial conjugial love. As to the natural and celestial, and their jealousy, these shall be spoken of in the two articles which now follow.

CL 369. VIII. THAT JEALOUSY IS SPIRITUAL WITH MONOGAMISTS,AND NATURAL WITH POLYGAMISTS. That jealousy is spiritual with monogamists is because they alone can receive spiritual conjugial love, as abundantly shown above. It is said there is spiritual jealousy with monogamists, but what is meant is that it is possible; for in the Christian world, where marriages are monogamous, it exists with very few. Yet, that it is possible there, has also been confirmed above. That with polygamists conjugial love is natural may be seen in the chapter on Polygamy (nos. 345-47); so likewise their jealousy, for this follows their love. [2] As to the nature of the jealousy of polygamists, we learn concerning this from the accounts of men who have witnessed it among orientals. These men relate that wives and concubines are guarded like captives in prisons, and are held back and restrained from all communication with men; that no man is allowed to enter the women's apartments or the rooms wherein they are confined, unless accompanied by a eunuch; that close observation is made as to whether any of the women look at a passing man with lascivious eyes or countenance, and that if this is observed the woman is punished with stripes, and if she practices lewdness with any man introduced into the outer room by stealth, or outside the harem, she is punished with death.

CL 370. The above illustrates the nature of the jealous fire into which polygamous conjugial love breaks out--a fire breaking out into anger and revenge, into anger in the case of the meek, and into revenge in the case of the fierce. This is because their love is natural and does not partake of what is spiritual. This follows from what was demonstrated in the chapter on Polygamy, namely, that polygamy is lasciviousness (no. 345), and that a polygamist, so long as he remains a polygamist, is natural and cannot become spiritual (no. 347). With natural monogamists, the jealous fire is different. Their love is not inflamed in this way against the women but against the violators. Against the latter it becomes anger, and against the former cold. Not so with polygamists. Moreover, the fire of their jealousy burns with vengeful fury. This also is among the reasons why after death the concubines and wives of polygamists are for the most part set free, and are assigned to unguarded women's apartments, there to make various things which pertain to women's work.

CL 371. IX. THAT WITH MARRIED PARTNERS WHO TENDERLY LOVE EACH OTHER, JEALOUSY IS A JUST GRIEF FROM SOUND REASON, LEST THEIR CONJUGIAL LOVE BE DIVIDED AND THUS PERISH. Within all love is fear and grief, fear lest it perish, and grief if it does perish. There is the like fear and grief in conjugial love, but the fear and grief of this love is called zeal or jealousy. That with partners who tenderly love each other this zeal is just and from sound reason, is because it is at the same time fear for the loss of eternal felicity, not only his own but also his partner's; and because it is also a protection against adultery. As regards the first point--that it is a just fear for the loss of his own and his partner's eternal felicity--this follows from all that has hitherto been advanced respecting love truly conjugial, and also from the fact that from that love comes the blessedness of their souls, the happiness of their minds, the delight of their bosoms, and the pleasure of their bodies; and because these remain with them to eternity, there is fear for each other's eternal happiness. [As regards the second point]--that the zeal is a just protection against adulteries--this is evident; therefore it is as a fire blazing out against violation and defending itself against it. From this it is evident that one who tenderly loves his partner is also jealous; but the jealousy is just and sane according to the wisdom of the man.

CL 372. It was said that in conjugial love is implanted fear lest it be divided, and grief lest it perish; and that its zeal is like fire directed against violation. Once, when meditating upon this, I asked certain zealous angels respecting the seat of jealousy. They said: "It is in the understanding of the man who receives the love of his partner and loves her in return, and its quality there is according to his wisdom." They also said that jealousy has something in common with honor, which also is within conjugial love, for he who loves his partner also honors her. [2] As to the reason why with a man zeal resides in his understanding, they said: "Conjugial love protects itself by the understanding, as good protects itself by truth. So a wife protects those things which she has in common with the man by her husband. Therefore, zeal is implanted in men, and through men and on account of men, in women." To the question, in what region of the mind does it reside with men, they answered: "In their souls, because it is also a protection against adulteries, and because these are what principally destroy conjugial love. Therefore, in the presence of attempts at its violation, the man's Understanding hardens and becomes as a horn smiting the adulterer."

CL 373. X. THAT WITH MARRIED PARTNERS WHO DO NOT LOVE EACH OTHER, JEALOUSY IS DUE TO MANY CAUSES, AND WITH SOME TO VARIOUS KINDS OF MENTAL SICKNESS. The reasons why married partners who do not mutually love each other are also jealous are principally, honor from potency, fear of dishonoring one's name and also that of one's wife, and dread lest one's domestic affairs be ruined. That men have honor from potency, that is, that from this they wish to be accounted as great men, is well known; for so long as they have this honor, they are as though raised up in their own mind and not shamefaced among men and women. Moreover, to this honor is attached the attribute of bravery, and therefore military officers have it more than others. As to fear of dishonoring one's name and that of one's wife, this makes one with the preceding reason; added to which is the fact that cohabitation with a harlot, and having a brothel in the home, are infamous. That jealousy exists with some lest their domestic affairs be ruined, is because the husband is so greatly disgraced, and mutual duties and services are done away with. With some, however, this jealousy ceases in time and becomes nonexistent, and with some it turns into a mere simulation of love.

CL 374. That with some, jealousy is from various mental sicknesses is no secret in the world; for there are jealous men who continually think of their wives as unfaithful, believing them to be harlots, and this merely on hearing or seeing that they talk amicably with men or about men. There are mental blemishes which induce this infirmity, the first among which is a suspicious fantasy. If long cherished, this brings the mind into societies of like spirits, from which it can be delivered only with difficulty. Jealousy also gives itself added strength in the body, by the serum and thence the blood becoming viscous, tenacious, thick, sluggish, and acrid. Moreover, it is augmented by lack of the virile powers, this rendering the mind unable to be raised above its suspicion; for their presence elevates, and their absence depresses, this absence causing the mind to droop, collapse and languish. It then immerses itself in that fantasy ever more and more until it becomes insane; and this insanity has its outlet in the delight of upbraiding and, so far as allowed, of reviling.

CL 375. Moreover, in certain regions there are families which labor under the sickness of jealousy more than others. By them Wives are imprisoned, tyrannically withheld from converse with men, shut off from the sight of them by windows provided with lattices stretching [from top] to bottom, and are terrified by threats of death if the husband find reason for the suspicion he nurses; besides other hardships which wives there suffer from their jealous husbands. Of this jealousy there are two causes: One is the imprisonment and stifling of the thoughts in respect to the spiritual things of the Church, the other is an intestine lust for revenge.

[2] As regards the first cause--the imprisonment and stifling of the thoughts in respect to the spiritual things of the Church--its effects can be concluded from what has previously been demonstrated, namely, that every one has conjugial love according to the state of the Church with him; and that this love is from the Lord alone because the Church is from Him (nos. 130, 131). Therefore, When men, living and dead, are approached and invoked in place of the Lord, it follows that there is no state of the Church with which conjugial love can act as one, and the less so when men's minds are terrified into that worship by threats of a frightful prison. Hence it comes to pass that their thoughts, and with them their speech, are violently imprisoned and suffocated, and with these suffocated, things flow in which are contrary to the Church or which, if they favor the Church, are imaginary. From all this, nothing else redounds but burning heat for harlots and icy cold for the consort. It is from these two together in one subject that this ungovernable fire of jealousy comes.

[3] As concerns the second cause, namely, an intestine lust for revenge, this entirely inhibits the influx of conjugial love, absorbs it, swallows it up, and turns its delight which is heavenly into the delight of revenge which is infernal; and the nearest object to which it is determined is the wife. Moreover, it is from appearance that the malignity of the atmosphere there, Which is impregnated with the virulent exhalations of the surrounding region, is a subsidiary cause.

CL 376. XI. THAT WITH SOME THERE IS NO JEALOUSY, AND THIS ALSO FROM VARIOUS CAUSES. There are many causes of an absence of jealousy and of a cessation of jealousy. Those especially have no jealousy who make conjugial love to be of no more account than scortatory love, and who at the same time are inglorious, counting a good reputation as of no value. They are not unlike married pimps. Those also have no jealousy who have put it away from a confirmed belief that it troubles the mind and that it is useless to keep watch on a wife; that if watched she is incited, and that therefore it is preferable to shut one's eyes and not even set them looking through the keyhole lest something be detected by the sight. Some have put it away on account of the stigma attached to the name jealousy, thinking that a man who is a man fears nothing. Some have been driven to put it away lest their domestic affairs be ruined, and also, lest they incur public censure were the wife to be convicted of the lewdness of which she is guilty. Furthermore, With men who, being themselves impotent, grant license to their wives in order to raise up children for the sake of their inheritance; also with men who do this for the sake of gain, and so on, jealousy recedes until it wholly disappears. There are also scortatory marriages in which, by mutual consent, both parties are given license to practice venery; yet they meet each other with a civil countenance.

CL 377. XII. THAT THERE IS JEALOUSY ALSO FOR MISTRESSES, BUT IT IS NOT OF THE SAME NATURE AS FOR WIVES. With man, jealousy for wives springs from inmosts, but jealousy for mistresses from outmosts. Therefore they differ in kind. That jealousy for wives springs from inmosts is because in inmosts resides conjugial love; and it resides there because, by reason of its eternal pact established by covenant, and also by reason of equality of right, in that what belongs to the one partner belongs to the other, marriage unites souls and binds minds together more deeply. This binding and union, once imposed, remains unbroken, whatsoever be the later love between them, whether warm or cold. [2] Thence it is, that invitation to love by a wife chills the whole man from inmosts to ultimates, while invitation to love by a mistress does not thus chill the lover. To jealousy for a wife is added ambition for a good name for the sake of honor, while jealousy for a mistress lacks this accessory. Yet both these jealousies vary according to the seat of the love received from the wife, and of that received from the mistress, and at the same time, according to the state of the judgment of the man receiving it.

CL 378. XIII. THAT THERE IS JEALOUSY ALSO WITH BEASTS AND BIRDS. That it exists with wild beasts, such as lions, tigers, bears, etc., when with their young, is well known; and also with bulls, even when there are no calves with them, and most conspicuously in cocks which fight with rivals for their hens, even to the death. The reason why these latter have such jealousy is because they are vainglorious lovers, and the glory of that kind of love does not brook an equal. That they are vainglorious lovers above every other genus and species of birds is apparent from their carriage, their nod, their gait, and their crowing. That with men, whether lovers or not, the glory of honor induces jealousy and exalts and sharpens it, has been confirmed above.

CL 379. XIV. THAT JEALOUSY WITH MEN AND HUSBANDS IS DIFFERENT FROM JEALOUSY WITH WOMEN AND WIVES. The differences, however, cannot be distinctly set forth; for with married partners, jealousy is of one kind with those who love each other spiritually, of another with those who love each other only naturally, of another with those who are of dissident minds, and of another with one who has subjected the other to the yoke of obedience. Considered in themselves, manly and wifely jealousy are different, being from different origins. The origin of manly jealousy is in the understanding, but that of wifely jealousy is in the will applied to the understanding of their men. Therefore, manly jealousy is as a flame of wrath and anger, but wifely jealousy is as a fire restrained by a variety of fears, a variety of attitudes to the husband, a variety of regards to her own love, and a variety in her prudence in not disclosing this love to the husband by jealousy. These two kinds of jealousy are distinguished, because wives are loves and men are recipients; and to wives it is obnoxious to be prodigal* of their love before their men, but not so to the recipients of that love before their wives. It is different with the spiritual. [2] With these, the man's jealousy is transferred to the wife, just as the wife's love is transferred to the man. Therefore, in both, the jealousy against the attempts of a violator appears to be the same; but the Wife's jealousy against the attempts of a harlot violator is inspired in the man as grief weeping and moving the conscience.

Swedenborgian Marriage Handbook
for Husbands

As seen and understood by Leon James

Afffirmative Action for Husbands || Leon's Case History || Doctrine of the Wife: Part 1 || Doctrine of the Wife: Part 2  || Spiritual Genes and Marriage || Husbands Confess Here || Husband's Voluntary Self-Subordination to Wife in Inner Things || Inventory of Bad Behaviors || Affirmative Action for Husbands || Psychobiology of Marriage || Conjugial Love || Gender Genes || Gender Words || Spiritual Causes of Divorce ||

See also Odhner's article on Sexual Equality in the Bible

I would be delighted to know your reactions. Please e-mail me now.

Correspondence on Love

Love or Lust?

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 07:57:46 -1000
To: leon@hawaii.edu
Subject: "From your leon.html File"

Dear Mr James,
        I was discussing with a friend the topic of love, which my friend does
not believe in.  He believes that love is simply a passion that lasts
longer(or a lust).  He makes the claim that there is no definition,
therefore love cannot exist.  Also, love is a word and an invention by
man, therefore, it does not exist.  His main argument is that there is
no love that isn't just a bigger form of lust or passion.  In other
words, love does not exist because if it did over 50% of couples
wouldn't get divorced in the United States and people would not be
unfaithfull,etc.
        So if you get the time I would truly appreciate your thoughts on love
and the meaning of it, as well as how we can see it in each other,
society, and in all things.  And see it not as lust or passion, but as
love.  Any reply would be greatly appreciated. Thank-you.
                                        Sincerely,
                                                Christopher 

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:19:09 -1000
From: Leon James 
Subject: Love

Hi Christopher, You asked about how to formulate a counter-argument
to your friend's denial of the existence of love. Here is what I would
say:

1) We are not living from ourselves but from God, who is pure Love and who
has created the universe out of the substance of Love.  This substance is
the primary substance and contains all other substances and matters.  That
is, all things are made out of Love.

2) The source of Love is the Spiritual Sun from which streams forth
spiritual heat (which is Love) and spiritual light (which is truth).
These two substances stream forth from the spiritual sun and create and
animate all things.  The spiritual sun is the sphere that surrounds God
and is God.

3) Just as the physical sun (which is from the spiritual sun) enters and
animates things on earth and make up the matter of all things on earth,
the spiritual heat (or Love) and the spiritual light (or Truth) stream
from the spiritual sun into our soul or spirit or mind (as you wish).
Thus our loves and our true thoughts are made up of these two substances.

4) Each individual is created a unique receptor of Love and Truth
streaming into the mind.  Thus each individual personalizes and adapts and
transforms the Love and Truth, resulting in unique personalities and
characters.  In other words, we pick and choose and convert and retain
only what we desire and want and prefer.  This accumulation is our
character, or our spiritual body, and is what lives after the death of the
body.  About 30 hours after the body dies, you wake up in your spiritual
body in the spiritual world where you can see the spiritual sun with your
eyes.  Your life then is fully determined by your character or spiritual 
body--what you have gathered to yourself while in the body--all the
thoughts and feelings you've chosen to be with and conjoin with as your
own.

5) As Love streams into us (the affective organ, or will), and creates our
unique feelings, emotions, and passions, so does Truths stream into us
(the cognitive organ, or understanding), and create our unique thoughts,
ideas, and reasonings.  Thus each of us has the freedom to alter and
modify and concentrate on aspects of Love and Truths, as well as CHANGE,
DEFORM, AND ADULTERATE them, rendering them into their exact opposite
within us.  Thus, as Loves and Truths stream into our mind from the
spiritual sun, we have the freedom to change them into their opposites.
Thus they become hatreds, selfishnesses, vengeances, lusts, cupidities,
and cruelties; as well as falsities, lies, appearances, contradictions,
and delusions.

There is Love and Truth, and we all receive it from the Divine every
second.  But we can pervert and turn them into opposite feelings and
thoughts.

These points are explained and proven by E. Swedenborg--whom you can study
from the materials on my Site.  Hope this helps.  Please let me know how
your friend (and yourself) react to these ideas.  Take care!

Leon James

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:15:11 -1000
To: Leon James 
Subject: Re: Love

Dr. James,
        Thank you very much for your thoughts on love, I greatly appreciate it.
It was weird, because I assumed that everybody had an idea of what love
was, and for someone to say that there "is no love" was kind of unexpected.
 So I thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my question.
                                                Sincerely,
                                                        Christopher

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:54:58 -1000
To: Leon James 
Subject: Re: Love

Have a question Doc.
	I wrote to you earlier on the existence of love, to which you gave a
reply.  Reading your return letter I noticed that you wrote that everybody
has a spiritual body and how we are when we die is how we will be for all
eternity.  In other words, life and experiences are important because they
teach us to live in the afterlife.  My pastor has talked about this many
times before when "preaching" and I asked him the same question I will ask
you. 
 
	I asked him what happens to young children who die and don't have a chance
to ever learn about spirituality?  My pastor said that although the death
is sad, many times it raises the belief systems of many others.  For
example: last year a young girl died  after being hit by a drunk driver
around where my church is.  Although her death was very sad and
unfortunate, the place where she died became kind of a holy spot. All of
her friends from school would come and hold hands while they prayed, lay
flowers and gifts, making a little shrine. Now I agree that it showed a lot
of faith and love for her friends to do that and brought a love greater
between all of them, but what about her?  This girl wasn't even fifteen
years old, how will she ever be able to live in an afterlife where growth
and experience are what counts?  She had no time to live and to learn.  

	My pastor beat around the bush with this question and never actually
answered me, so I decided I would ask you:)  If a young child dies while
they are being born what happens to them?  If someone never believes
because there are so many philosophies and religions, what happens to them?
 If someone never believes because they have never known about it, like a
young african boy living in the jungle all of his life, what happens to him?

	A lot of people say that if you don't believe you go to
hell...bang...that's it.  But I don't see a rational being doing that.  I
see a rational being looking at the life that this person has led and
seeing the difficulties and heartaches.  How can someone say "you are going
to hell" because you don't believe?  That doesn't sound like a very loving
God to me?

	Well, if you get the time I would appreciate an answer. Thank you for your
time.
				Sincerely,
					Christopher

From leon@hawaii.edu Wed Oct 29 14:03:39 1997
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:07:03 -1000
From: Leon James 
Subject: Re: Love

Hi Christopher!  You asked two questions:  What happens to children
who die? and why would God condemn people to hell just because they made
mistakes?

Swedenborg has answers to both of these and they make a lot of sense, so I
shall transmit them to you.  First, all children who die before the age of
reason or adulthood (this being a range...), are awakened within 36 hours
in the spiritual world (as everyone else is), and are taken charge of by
loving women who live as angels in heaven and desire to nurture children.

Education and special supervised experiences are given them until they
grow to adulthood, or around age 17, and are then married to others who
have also grown up in the spiritual world.  As couples they thus live to
eternity in their heaven along with others from earth who passed on at all
ages, but all appear to be young adults in their prime of youth, beauty,
and wisdom.  This is the reason that I do not feel sad when a child dies,
knowing its fate which is wonderful!!  Many people who pass on as adults
betake themselves to hell and live there, only some to heaven.  However,
ALL children who pass on are led successfully to heaven.  Great, yeah?

Second, the Lord does not punish and condemn people to hell on account of
their sins or mistakes.  You need to understand that our moment by moment
daily life and decisions (what we say, what we think, what we favor, what
we practice, what we acquiesce to, etc.) create our mind or spirit in a
gradual growth process, just like the body is created by food and
exercise.  When you pass on, you are given the opportunity to visit all
sorts of heavens.  However you need to understand that heaven is a state
of mind--you breath and live and think and feel heavenly atmospheres.  So
you can live in heaven only if your mind or spirit has been fashioned (by
your daily decisions) to breathe that atmosphere, which is an atmosphere
of love and wisdom and obedience to the Lord's Order, the Lord's Thoughts,
the Lord's Love. 

You can see that people who develop a selfish or dishonest way of thinking
and acting develop a mind or spirit who can live only in atmospheres that
are made of these selfish things and dishonest things.  Thus when they're
given the chance to visit heavenly atmoshpheres (or "cities"), they cannot
breathe and experience extreme torture as if they're going to swoon and
die (like a fish in the atmosphere, or like a bird caught under water).

Swedenborg witnessed this many times. Hence, they willingly betake
themselves to "hellish" atmospheres (or "cities"), where they live their
eternal life out in company with like-minded people or spirits.  As
Swedenborg describes them there, they're not to be envied!  Yet it's their
choice and the Lord cannot change this despite His Omnipoence and His
Perfect Love, since to remove  their current desires, motives, and
concepts would be to render them lifeless,  like a statue.  Hence the Lord
lovingly cares for them in hell, providing angelic Overseers or Governors,
who have the power the punish and compel people there to withold
themselves from doing evil to their comapnions.

So as you can see, it is a perfect and loving universe.  Hope this helps
and stimulates you to read Swedenborg's Writings further.

Leon

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:57:43 -1000
To: Leon James 
Subject: Re: Love

Hi there Dr. James.  I have another question for you if you don't mind.  Do
you?.....good...I didn't think you would:)
	If we are discussing love and spirituality, obviously one major thing that
brings people closer or makes them hate each other is sex.  I am currently
chatting with a friend who claims that sex and oral sex are totally
different, meaning that intercourse is giving more of yourself then oral
sex.  I personally disagree, because both acts can show love, affection,
etc. and both basically achieve the same thing.  And since you seem to know
everything:) about what I ask about love and spirituality, I was wondering
what your thoughts are.

Do you think people just say oral sex isn't as
"bad" as sex so they have an excuse to fool around with everybody, or do
you think that actual intercourse is an act seperate and more dangerous(or
better) spiritually and physically?
			A reply would be much appreciated,
							Christopher
p.s. happy?...summed it up nice and short for you.

From leon@hawaii.edu Fri Oct 31 11:00:42 1997
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:52:55 -1000
From: Leon James 
Subject: Re: Love

Hi Christopher,

From the spiritual perspective, sexual activity is created by God in
individuals for the purpose of conjoining the minds of a man and a woman
so that they as a couple, can constitute a full fledged human being.

All marriages start as external conjunction and grow into internal
marriage in which there is an external marriage.  However, this requires
spiritual work on the part of both partners, especially the subjection of
the man's roving desires to his wife only.  This can be accomplished only
if you view marriage in its true and holy function, namely the uniting in
mind of a man and a woman.

All sexual activity prior to marriage interferes with this spiritual
effort to be conjoined as one on the inner plane.  However, pre-marital
sex is not as grave or damaging as adulterous sex, or sex with a married
partner not your own.  When people are having pre-marital sex, it is
better to have imposed limits for the sake of marriage than not to have
any.  Thus, if people make a rule for themselves, such as you mention,
that they can have one kind of sex (say, oral sex) but not another kind of
sex (say, intercourse), and they are doing this because they are motivated
to maintain marriage as special, then I can see that it is better than to
make no distinctions.

In general, damaging spiritual acts or decisions, vary along a scale of
how damaging they are--just like certain diets or poisons are for the
body.  In the case of oral sex vs. intercourse, what matters is WHY the
person is choosing to make a distinction.  If the person is motivated by
spiritual motives, that is, to reduce possible damage, then it's better
than making no such distinctions.  It's never the act itself that counts
in the presence of God, but the motive.  It's the motive that has
spiritual significance, not the act itself.  This is because the act
itself is external, and is but a consequence of the motive.  The motive is
the person.  The motive remains in the person forever, and determines the person's condition and fate in the afterlife. 

Leon

Active Listening in Marriage

 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:25:03 -1000
 Subject: Appearances and Generalizations (Re: For A Successful Marriage...)

Dear friends,
What is a successful marriage? Would we KNOW one if we saw it? Always??

We probably have some idea of when a marriage is working and when it is not. But appearances can be deceiving. The Lord, through Swedenborg's book Marriage Love (or Conjugial Love) seems to speak directly to the subject currently under discussion here: "There are hellish marriages in the world in which the partners are inwardly bitter enemies and YET OUTWARDLY SEEM LIKE THE CLOSEST OF FRIENDS. Actually, I am forbidden by wives of this sort in the spiritual world to bring the existence of such marriages to public notice... However, being spurred by men in the same world to make known the reasons for their inner hatred and virtual rage against their wives...

I would like simply to present the following reports." "Now because these men wondered theselves why there arose in them such animosity inwardly and such apparent amiability outwardly, they sought the reasons form women who knew the secret art that caused it; and from what those women told them... they learned that women deeply conceal a knowledge within them by which they are able to skillfully tame men IF THEY WISH and make them subject to their command... For they know that the nature of men makes it altogether imporssible for them to withstand the persistent efforts of their wives, and that once men have yielded they then submit themselves to their wives' wishes. At that point, said the men, once the wives have them under their control, they then show their husbands courteous and amiable treatment." WOW! Stong language (I added the emphasis).

And it sounds like the wives are to blame. But God via Swedenborg) continues... "I have also heard justifications from the aforementioned women in the spiritual world as to why they entered into the practice of this art. They said they would not have entered into it except that they foresaw the supreme contempt, future rejection, and therefore utter ruin that lay ahead for them if they were to be beaten down by their husbands. THUS, they said, OUT OF NECESSITY THEY HAD TAKEN UP THESE WEAPONS OF THEIRS." "To this they added the following warning for men, TO LEAVE TO WIVES THEIR RIGHTS, AND WHEN THEY EXPERIENCE PERIODIC STATES OF COLDNESS, NOT TO REGARD THEIR WIVES AS INFERIOR AND TREAT THEM WORSE THAN THEY WOULD SERVANTS." What I get from this is that it is hard to know when a marriage is good and when it is not. On the surface it could look great, but within, it could be "hellish". And the converse is true. So how does this relate to "active listening"? First, the study that concluded that active listening did not "work" was probably limited in its capacity to discern whether or not the marriages under scrutiny were working spiritually.

More importantly, the study (as reported) may have done people working to build a healthy marriage a great disservice by using a term that has become a buzz phrase in our culture without adequately defining it. (which kind of reminds me about recent discussions of translation!) If the husbands who practiced "active listening" in the unsuccessful marriages were simply patronizing their wives, and merely going through the motions of caring, etc., then it's not surprising that the technique failed to work! But the basic problem lies not with the technique, but with their fundamental lack of commitment. As I understand it, active listening is simply a tool whereby one person strives to understand the heart of another. Leon's address tag quotes a powerful teaching that has direct relevance here: "Thoughts are from affections." Affections are from loves. Love is the life of man. So... to truly know another, we must connect with their loves. Often, our main tool is words -- the end of the love/affection/thought chain. And as we all have experienced countless times in our lives and in the pages of this forum, words are often misunderstood. In most human affairs, and most certainly in marriage, these misunderstandings can lead to all manner of pain, anguish, and destruction.

So much of the time, it seems, we begin reacting to another's words without really understanding 1) the actual words they spoke or wrote and/or 2) the affection underlying the thought underlying the words. As a consequence, a lot of energy is consumed and wasted on tangents. (As I write this I am painfully aware that I may be DOING it!!) A lot of this has to do with perception. "We see the world not so much as it is, but AS WE ARE." So many things enter into and affect our perceptions -- our heredity, our mood, our biochemical state... So what can we do? How can we receive from the Lord a "union of two persons in respect to their interiors, which belong to the thought and the will (in which) one ... loves what the other thinks and what the other wills; thus ... to be united to the other, and to become as one person?" (Heavenly Secrets 10169) Lots could be said about that, but in my mind it would all boil down to this: "Love the Lord your God with ALL your heart, with ALL your soul, and with ALL your mind/strength. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it. You shall love your neighbor AS YOURSELF." In marriage, this translates to "Love your partner with ALL your heart, with ALL your soul, and with ALL your mind/strength. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like it. You shall love your partner AS YOURSELF.

No one likes or wants to be misunderstood. It's one of the more frustrating experiences we can have in life, especially when there's a strong emotional charge around the issues under discussion (as is often the case in marriage!). How many marriages, friendships, and other relationships fail to reaach their potential because of the cumulative effects of poor communication and misunderstanding? I believe "active listening" (that is, turning off the noise in my own head long enough to hear what my partner is REALLY saying... checking my perception of what my partner has said by paraphrasing and relecting it back with the respectful, sincere question "This is what I heard -- did I understand you correctly?"... and not reacting or responding until I'm certain I understand what it is that my partner is saying or wants me to do...) is a VITAL TOOL. It enables us to deal with reality, using the God-given tool that separates us from animals -- rationality.

James Taylor, in his song "That Lonesome Road" poignantly expressed the need for such communication: "If I had stopped and listened once or twice/If I had closed my mouth and opened my eyes/If I had cooled my head and warmed my heart/I'd not be on this road tonight..." As a divorced person, I believe my first marriage could only have benefited from more active listening on my part. As a re-married person, I am committed to doing more active listening with my partner, not less. And so, for what it's worth, I pray that I and all humanity will learn to do more active listening, not less. With love and humility, Karl E. Parker

Thank you Byron for the newsclip on new findings by psychologists.  A  comment on these two:  "Many tried the "active listening" model, which calls in part for each person to re-phrase what the other has said and to  indicate they are listening with responses such as "I hear what you are  saying".
...and...  Instead, the marriages that seemed to work had one  thing in common -- the husband was willing to be influenced by his wife.  "We found that only those newlywed men who are accepting of influence from  their wives are winding up in happy, stable marriages," Gottman said.
++++++++++++
The so-called "active listening" doesn't work because it just becomes   another tool in the husband's arsenal against his wife.  The reason   "obeying your wife" works when "active listening, etc." does not, is  because, as we know from the Writings, that obeying is compelling oneself   in freedom, and that counts for regeneration, while merely communicating > and arguing ("active listening") is not serviceable for regneration for it  is not from the reformed will, but from the old will.
Leon

Pellicacy, Sex and Eroticism

Correspondence on sex and eroticism as viewed by some New Church people who were electronic participants. 

Note that they are responding to each other and when they quote someone you'll see various symbols next to the paragraph:  < or << or : or *

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 05:26:01 -1000

Subject: Affirmative Action for Wives

Leon,

Have your written anything regarding "Affirmative Action for Wives"? I am

interested in understanding my role as a wife and how I may take concrete

clearly defined steps toward understanding and improving myself in this

role.

I am looking for the counterpart to your "Husbands confess Here" - what

should I as a wife confess? and "Doctrine of the Wife" - a doctrine of the

Husband would be useful to help my understanding; and "Husbands Self

Subordination to the Wife" - is there a complementary role that the wife

should play and if so, what is that role? I understand that the wife has a

"moderating" effect on her husband and I would like to understand this more

and learn how I should use it for good.

Thank you for your wonderful insightful writings. I visit your page often.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:51:42 -1000

Subject: Re: Evangelism

Leon writes:

> There is a crucial fourth step that I think we need to add if we are to

> reflect teachings from the Writings:

> 4) strive to shun our evils as sins against the Lord.

Thanks Leon for this important reminder.

In comparing the "Old" Christian church with the "New" Church I'd like to

throw out a couple of questions related to this:

1) How does the New Church definition of evil differ from the Old Church?

2) What tools do the Writings provide to help us shun evils as sins

against the Lord that weren't previously available?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:58:49 -1000

From: Leon James <leon@hawaii.edu>

Subject: Re: Affirmative Action for Wives

> I am looking for the counterpart to your "Husbands confess Here" - what

> should I as a wife confess? and "Doctrine of the Wife" - a doctrine of the

> Husband would be useful to help my understanding; and "Husbands Self

> Subordination to the Wife" - is there a complementary role that the wife

> should play and if so, what is that role? I understand that the wife has a

> "moderating" effect on her husband and I would like to understand this more

> and learn how I should use it for good.

+++++++

Hi,

What a wonderful question indeed! I think my wife Diane would be the one

to answer you properly. I can say what I think based on what I have

learned from her point of view:

The wife is not at all in the same position as the husband so there is no

need for wives to confess as there is for husbands.

This is because our world is oriented or biased towards male prerogatives

and against female ones. Also, wives have an inner urging, irresistible

for the most part, to conjoin themselves with the husband--his way of

thinking and reasoning. Diane says she had to learn what my peculiar

("Rumanian" un-American) sense of humor is so she can make me laugh and

feel comfortable. And she imbibed all my wisdom and intelligence and

science to the extent that she understood as much or more than I--but with

a difference.

The wife does moderate the husband, yes. Diane says she always has to

tone me down so I'm less brutal. She tells other wives (only few desire to

hear this she says) that they can't give up on anything, that they've got

to fight for everything, that they can't win unless the husband is bound

by higher moral or religious rules and principles of conduct, that the

wife must appeal to whatever principles the husband subscribes to and use

it as a tool to compel him to live up to it. Etc.

As for me and all husbands: the wife is my only chance--she is taking me

to her heaven, for by myself, I'm hurtling deeper into hell. This I must

keep in front of me all the time, every minute of every day. I've started

counting the number of time each day I remember to say to her: Thanks for

taking me to heaven, sweetie. What can I do for you?? I owe you big!!

Here is a real arena for all couples: partnership driving. This is my

agreement as the driver to let her tell me how to drive: slow down, Leon,

you're making me nervous. Yes darling. Don't change lane, Leon. No I

won't. Wave to that man who let you in. OK, I'm waving. Fix your face,

Leon--you look like you're mad. OK, darling, I'm smiling. etc.

It's a wonderful challenge, well worth it....

Leon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:22:26 -1000

Subject: Pellicacy

I've started my study of pellicacy with CL 459-460.

Here "pellicacy", or the taking of a mistress, is described as a kind of

stop-gap "finger in the dyke" measure. It is *some* means of restraint for

those who, for whatever reason, can't get married, and are full of

"immoderate", "inordinate" or "salacious" lusts.

Pellicacy isn't to be confused with conjugial love because it is "an

unchaste, natural and external love". But *at least* it's better than

indiscriminate bed-hopping, deflowering virgins, commiting adultery,

contracting STDs, or going generally nuts.

I read nothing in here about an active exploration of one's sexuality as

something positive and inherently orderly. I hear no respect or dignity for

the man or his mistress. (and no consideration for a *woman* who might find

herself unmarried and horny).

As a single person I find this passage deeply offensive. Some might say

that, given the "state of things", Swedenborg is offering a very

compassionate alternative. I don't *want* compassion. My sex drive is a

very healthy and pervasive part of my being. It is not a barely-contained

disease apart from marriage.

I can't see that my reading is simply due to a bad translation or old ANC

buttons being pushed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:12:00 -1000

Subject: Re: Pellicacy

Ya see, I think this IS a translation issue. Sort of. The words you are

quoting have implications of, oddly, "UN-natural" lustiness, while yet,

they actually are being used to describe what the numbers go on to say is

a "natural, external (I read this as hormonally driven rather than as

driven by common spiritual bonds) love" "unchaste" doesn't mean "dirty"!

It means, "not settled on one final selection with whom I shall live to

eternity seeing God as if out of her/his eyes". The descriptives used

aren't necessarily commendatory, but neither are they condemning. The

English words chosen by the translator may have those nasty overtones, but

does the Latin? Yes, in general, following the trend of one's natural

urges to the nth degree leads to unhappiness, but this is true of

gluttony, drunkeness, and other complete abandonments to physical pleasure

independent of a consideration of the uses involved.

"Pellicacy isn't to be confused with conjugial love": surely you can tell

the difference between a hearty load of junk food from McD's and a really

nourishing, organic veggie dinner? You don't mix _them_ up, right? Sw.

is just saying, don't go trying to make a sacrament out of a light

snack--not, "Don't you dare presume to accord pellicacy the sacred stature

of marriage, you little worm", but, "Get it that there are levels of

feeling involved here, and satisfaction of natural urges with a

cooperative, clear-eyed partner isn't on the same level as eternal

internal union." So what? So just keep it straight, that's all.

: But *at least* it's better than

: indiscriminate bed-hopping, deflowering virgins, commiting adultery,

: contracting STDs, or going generally nuts.

But isn't it? I don't see why the desiderata below couldn't be carried

out in the context of pellicacy.

: I read nothing in here about an active exploration of one's sexuality as

: something positive and inherently orderly. I hear no respect or dignity for

: the man or his mistress. (and no consideration for a *woman* who might find

: herself unmarried and horny).

Well. I don't know if "unmarried and horny" women existed in Sw's

day--when a woman might find herself married before her first mensis,

even. "Horny" doesn't kick in in an overwhelming way till ovulation is

driving the survival of the species, oh, I mean, the continuation of the

heavens from the human race...I know women even my age who state that they

never experienced an overwhelming, "I will trip him and beat him to the

floor if he doesn't come home interested" feeling, although I also know

many who say they have.

As a more-and-more leaning towards Nova Heirosolyma person, I also suspect

these passages have something to do with the ways in which each of us lets

truth mate with good in our individual minds. I know for a fact I have

experienced episodes of lustful, profligate acquisition of knowledges in

my life, taking in subject after subject without much consideration for

what the topic is doing for me, but only stuffing myself full of more and

more to know! Just reveling in my mind's ability to learn and hold on to

it all. I put it to some use, but not to anything long-term or especially

beneficial to my neighbor. This is promiscuity of the mind, which the

Lord put to good use in spite of me by making me a Spec. Ed. teacher. I

have to know a bit about everything, in case some particular bit is what

the current student is struggling with, along with the primary learning

problem. (Isn't God a smarty?)

: My sex drive is a

: very healthy and pervasive part of my being. It is not a barely-contained

: disease apart from marriage.

Interestingly, I just don't read these numbers as being in conflict with

that assertion. The Writings don't seem to me to deny the value of a

healthy sex drive, of learning about one's physiology and its pleasures,

or any of that great stuff. What it seems to me _is_ encouraged is

clarity about motive, and caution about inconsiderate greed for

experience.

: I can't see that my reading is simply due to a bad translation or old ANC

: buttons being pushed.

Dunno. I dream of translations that are as moral-neutral as possible. I

don't deny the existence of evil, but I re-define it as "what people do

that is in conflict with true happiness" rather than as "what people do

that we ought to all point fingers at and say 'tsk, tsk' about" or as

"what people do for which they ought to burn in fire". My reading of the

Writings is what leads me to this redefinition.

Also, I would like to note the distinction between reveling in a quality

and wallowing in it.

I feel sad for the hurt and resentment I hear in your message. Sounds

like you would like to reconnect with the Writings, if they would just

stop smacking you in the face...

Love to all,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:09:38 -1000

Subject: Pellicacy

>>I feel sad for the hurt and resentment I hear in your message. Sounds

like you would like to reconnect with the Writings, if they would just

stop smacking you in the face...<<

I feel no real investment in "reconnecting with the Writings" other than to

stop the chain of abuse.

I don't mean to sound melodramatic; but when some one is made to feel that

their sexuality is evil, disorderly, dirty or second rate because of the

condition of their hymen, their marital status, the "legitimacy" of their

offspring, or the plausibility of their reasons for divorce...THAT is

sexual abuse.

I am not just "hurt and resentful" about this abuse. I am very *angry*. It

needs to stop.

Now, I submit that a very horny AND very idealistic 15 year old boy could

carry his copy of Conjugial Love to his room, read CL 459 and get this

message from Swedenborg/the LORD: "If you really, really don't have the

self-discipline to wait for the precious gift of conjugial love <sigh> you

may go off in the corner and take a mistress (assuming you can find one).

Of course, if you really cared about the sanctity of marriage you'd

*wait*....

Oh,and, by the way, stop touching yourself."

Let's talk about this business of "waiting".

I've known several who simply couldn't wait -whose hormones carried them

head-long into marriage as *the* *only* *legitimate* place they could have

sex...with predictable results. Sex is one of God's most marvelous

creations. It still is no basis for marriage.

I've known those who couldn't wait and had "the flower of their virginity"

taken away _before_ marriage or who got carried away and "violated" some

girl's "innocence" in the back seat of a car and, in fear and shame, turned

to marriage as their only salvation...Again, with predictable results.

I've known those who have continued the waiting processs *after* marriage,

meekly enduring a listless, empty, or even abusive sex life...hoping that

something would get better -with no help from Swedenborg and no opportunity

for escape.

And I've known those who have simply continued to wait...and wait...and

wait. If you want to understand the physiological implications of sex after

*decades* of waiting...go into your living room. Sit in your favorite chair

and deliberately try to reverse your toilet training.

These people were not intentionally abused but they *were* abused.

I'm actually rather tired of beating on the parents, teachers and

translators of our youth. As an adult reading the passages which they read

I can easily understand their interpretation and their willingness to pass

on the "ideal" message of CL as something "worth wating for"

It was a message passed on in fear...the parent's fear, the teacher's fear,

the clergy's fear, the translator's fear, and Yes,(Swedenborg, you're not

off the hook) the revelator's fear.

Either passages like CL 459 reverse that message of fear or they continue

to promote it.

Maybe Swedenborg isn't presenting pellicacy as some sort of consolation

prize for those who "can't hack it".

Maybe pellicacy really is a truly wonderful way for people to experience

respectful and affectionate sexual interaction in all those "in-between"

places" in which they find themselves.

I have no right to make demands on a church which I'm no longer a part of.

I've cheerfully forfeited that right. But I challenge those who are still

"believers" to shout a "new pellicacy" message from the roof-tops.

It is not only the final goal which is holy. The *process* must be seen to

be holy as well. It is only then that we stop abusing those within the

process.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:18:02 -1000

Subject: Re: Pellicacy

His response feels disputatious, whereas I was hoping we were looking

together (the group of us here) at the passages that offend him to see if

they might be construed less offensively. I am especially motivated in

this direction since I find in them an offer of mercy and understanding of

the human condition, and not condemnation for the same. I still feel that

the condemnatory implications are translator's choice, and not present in

the shame-inducing way Kent seems to experience them. This I feel doubly,

having just read the Latin Jan so kindly sent along.

It felt like the message there was, "If you can't hold it together to

abstain, and most of humanity can't, then here are some acceptable ways to

deal with your lack of perfection (which, since you aren't ME <says the

Lord>, you aren't expected to have any of anyhow, and this doesn't make

you any less worthy or loveable in MY eyes). Now (He continues)--MY first

choice for those who aren't blessed at the age of 16 with finding their CP

and marrying them instantly is that they trust ME to get them there

eventually, and channel their procreative urges into useful physical

activity and creative mental effort. However, since I know how improbable

it is that people can stand to live according to that high-minded

expectation (I made all of you, right?), here are some other okay

choices:" and "pellicacy" is one of them, as are some other options.

: I don't mean to sound melodramatic; but when some one is made to feel that

: their sexuality is evil, disorderly, dirty or second rate because of the

: condition of their hymen, their marital status, the "legitimacy" of their

: offspring, or the plausibility of their reasons for divorce...THAT is

: sexual abuse.

"Evil,", "dirty" and "second rate" do not occur in the passages which

offer options to folks whose natural proclivities leave them unable to

wait.

"Less orderly" is used to indicate that human sexual behavior occurs on a

continuum from "terribly damaging to oneself or others" to "really

splendid for all concerned!".

: I am not just "hurt and resentful" about this abuse. I am very *angry*. It

: needs to stop.

I hear this--I agree with this. I think that where may not agree is in

the locus of abuse.

: Now, I submit that a very horny AND very idealistic 15 year old boy could

: carry his copy of Conjugial Love to his room, read CL 459 and get this

: message from Swedenborg/the LORD: "If you really, really don't have the

: self-discipline to wait for the precious gift of conjugial love <sigh> you

: may go off in the corner and take a mistress (assuming you can find one).

: Of course, if you really cared about the sanctity of marriage you'd

: *wait*....

: Oh,and, by the way, stop touching yourself."

Um. *(Deep breath, and R-rating warning)* "AND very idealistic" leads me

to think that a LOT of the guilt was self-induced--would this be a boy who

had incredibly high, noble aspirations who is angry at himself for failing

to live up to them? Get off it, I want to say to this kid--who died and

left you God? You get to be human too, and part of that is you aren't

virgin Mary, so have at it and enjoy it--the Lord gave you this current

desire and experience to let you know that something even better awaits

you. If you think this feels good, think how wonderful you will

feel sharing this with your partner some day! Just get the sock into the

hamper for me, thanks.

: Let's talk about this business of "waiting".

But that's just it! God did not tell people to wait, come hell or high

water! He graciously detailed many options for those who can't, none of

which were included in the sad litany Kent provided. The wait if you can,

try this out if you can't approach is one that I find endearing about God

and also about 12-step programs, and also about behaviorist psychology.

Each simply asks one to do what one can, and to make successive, or one's

own personal best, approximations to betterment. I still feel that the

folks who have taken one of the paths Kent expounded on (and I was one of

them for a time) have done so, not at the Lord's behest, but out of

pig-headed determination to be even better than He expects us to be, or

out of insistence that we know better than He does what we 'ought' to be

doing. Spurious conscience!

: These people were not intentionally abused but they *were* abused.

And by themselves as much as by parents, teachers, and translators...

: Maybe pellicacy really is a truly wonderful way for people to experience

: respectful and affectionate sexual interaction in all those "in-between"

: places" in which they find themselves.

There--my vote is that this is what the Writings do say. And: I still

opine that the social structure of most GC towns would have a hard time

dealing with a frank statement by a couple that this is where they are.

However, a pre-1900 _NC Life_ (wish I could remember where I saw this

quoted!) included the affirmative answer from a minister to the question,

"Ought a concubine be received socially as having the same status as a

wife?" So things were different once, and could be again.

: It is not only the final goal which is holy. The *process* must be seen to

: be holy as well. It is only then that we stop abusing those within the

: process.

As a teacher whose entire lesson plan most days is about process not

product, I heartily endorse this POV.

What about the passage that says that making no distinction between levels

and degrees of disorder (some hardly matter, some are grievous) is making

a featureless, pasty mess of things? Anyone have that readily available?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:44:22 -1000

Subject: RE: Pellicacy

#I don't mean to sound melodramatic; but when some one is made to feel that

#their sexuality is evil, disorderly, dirty or second rate because of the

#condition of their hymen, their marital status, the "legitimacy" of their

#offspring, or the plausibility of their reasons for divorce...THAT is

#sexual abuse..

#I am not just "hurt and resentful" about this abuse. I am very *angry*. It

#needs to stop..

This, of course, is not a result of the Writings or any other spiritual

guide. What you've explained is the sexual attitudes of our culture.

*People* have hang-ups about sex. Guilt from hell and false idealism have

brought us to this point (we often refer to Victorian values with this

subject).

When we face a dilemma, our solutions can not come solely from written

doctrine. There are two fountains of truth. The other fountain is nature

(and the experience we receive from nature [actually Providence]). In my

experiences, I've had to weight the doctrinal interpretations of others with

what I have experienced. As far as I'm concerned (as well as my wife), the

marriage of virgins in today's Western culture, sets them up for many

awkward moments that will be imbedded into their lives forever.

In nature, animals go through many rituals to insure compatibility and

synchronization before they mate. We don't have these rituals. What we

have are these rules that we are supposed to be followed - and hope for the

best after the wedding day. Sexual relations prior to marriage is a way to

see intimate compatibility - to get syncronized. Our Victorian heritage

turns this "truly wonderful way for people to experience respectful and

affectionate sexual interaction" (as Kent says) into a dirty act.

Besides, this rule of being a virgin at marriage is rarely true in practice.

We all say it's preferable, but very very few actually do it. So in the

case of Pellicacy, the Lord isn't telling us to go ahead and do it -

Pellicacy is a definition of something that already occurs within cultures.

We all are going to do what we want to anyhow - and forming intimate

relationships is one of our primary drives.

I share your anger at society over this schizophrenia - although most

likely not for the same reason. I think that false projections of truth

continue to make us more guilty that we should be - which is one of the main

tools of the underworld. But this is not the fault of revelation (which can

be turned any direction we wish), but is a hard to break affection

(affectation) of our culture.

P.S.

In a perfect world, virgins will marry. In this world, our partners will

probably have prior experience.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 05:15:43 -1000

Subject: Re: Translations Not the Issue

> I'm sorry, but in considering passages such as CL 445 and

> their acceptance by the world at large, I feel gender issues and

> translations are pretty much beside the point.

Thanks.. I think this whole thread is wonderful. Now, birds are doing

WHAT with their large bills, and do I really want to know? :)

Some of these passages from the Writings remind me of Bible stories like

Judges 19:

A Levite and his concubine were besieged in a house by a vicious mob, and

the solution to the problem was for him to hand over his concubine, who was

then raped to death. The appropriate response to that was to chop up her

body and use the pieces to send a message to his countrymen, to get their

help in attacking the villains. If the numbers are to be believed, this

action cost more than eighty thousand lives, and had Jehovah's endorsement.

Now, we're told, there were only six hundred men left of the tribe of

Benjamin. Apparently it had also been necessary and proper to slaughter all

of the women (Judges 21:16). But of course it is UNTHINKABLE that the few

surviving Benjamites should be deprived of women. The solution was to find a

city that had not participated in the action against Benjamin, kidnap all

the virgin women and kill everyone else. When that action didn't produce

enough women, the Benjamites were urged to invade a religious gathering and

kidnap some others.

In response to this, I like the words at the end of the opening article in

_Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture_:

What does this mean? What does that mean? Is this Divine? Can God, to

whom belongs infinite wisdom, speak in this way? Where is its sanctity,

or where does it come from but from people's religious gullibility?

(SS 1).

Where does this story place women in the scheme of things? And what does it

say about the men who uphold that scheme of things? I'd really like to

believe that story contains an inner meaning that somehow compensates for

the horror it depicts. I'd even like to believe that about the lesser horror

of _Married Love_ 445 and similar passages. The second heading in _Doctrine

of the Sacred Scripture_ says:

In the Word there is a spiritual meaning, hitherto unknown (SS 5)

Of course, "hitherto unknown" often means "unknown by ME, right up to, and

including NOW."

Why would I like to believe that, instead of taking the simpler and more

humane course of dismissing these books as false and destructive? As a

participant in more than one religious community, I can see the destruction

all around me, and in me, right now. To say that there's a hidden meaning

that justifies all this only makes the picture of God worse, doesn't it?

When God isn't being angry and violent, he's passive-agressive, and hiding

his real meaning -- or using this weird symbol system to argue that when he

smites us, "It hurts me more than it hurts you." It doesn't comfort me a bit

to think that God let people get slaughtered and raped in order to provide a

cover story that would safely encrypt his precious Truth. That isn't an

explanation, but another thing that demands explanation.

For myself, I continue to hope and even believe that there is something

deeper within these texts, that can and does answer my previous paragraph.

This I think mostly because, in reading these books, I have at times had the

experience of relating to God as to another human being, and in using ideas

from these books, I have at times experienced positive changes in my life,

that I could not have brought about by myself. HERE AND THERE in those

books, I find this experience of having a face-to-face relationship with

God, and of being shaped for the better by God's hands. In a great many

passages, however, it don't find any trace of that experience. Sometimes I

am confused or even disgusted. But going along with that is an intuition, or

gut feeling, that the experience is still there waiting for me, under the

veil of what annoys and disgusts me.

Should I believe that the obscure places still contain an inner message that

is good and useful, even though I don't see it? Is it possible that the

parts of the books that DON'T shed light for me, or even the parts that I

find perfectly awful, are still a revelation of sorts?

Some of the passages that shine brightly for me are speaking to this

possibility. One of these is SS 55:

The doctrine of genuine truth may also be fully drawn from the literal

meaning of the Word; for the Word in that meaning is like a person

clothed, but whose face and hands are uncovered. Everything in the Word

pertaining to a person's life and thus to his/her salvation, is unveiled

there. In many places where it is veiled it shines through as the face

appears through a thin veil of silk.

This passage resonates strongly with my own experience, in which I sometimes

feel that I am looking right into the Lord's eyes, and being molded by the

Lord's hands. It also speaks to my experience of feeling confused and put

off by the ragged, dirty, bloodied clothing in which the Lord often shows up

at my door.

If there is truth in _Married Love_ 443 and Judges 19 then for me, it is

deeply veiled, under cloth that I would rather just burn than attempt to

wash. Still, I am hoping, and am acquiring some reason to think, that they

are concealing something precious, some spiritual or heavenly treasure. My

experience and intuition tell me something is hidden there, not just

missing. So I keep looking, and make an effort to act according to the

things that DO make sense to me. I hear the Lord telling me that I'll be

happy if I act on what DOES make sense to me -- and happier still if I keep

my mind open to deeper truths, that will shed light on the things that don't

yet make sense to me.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:41:03 -1000

From: Leon James <leon@hawaii.edu>

Subject: Re: Pellicacy

I enjoyed L's contribution to this topic! It's a modern view that has

merit, I believe! I ran across this, which suprised me: that Swedenborg

in Journal of Dreams (No.?) has an entry that says his sexuality has been

his STRONGEST passion in life! and that now he was experiencing a change

since being introduced into the spiritual world and that this change was

welcome in his eyes, though it greatly surpised him that his sexual drive

suddenly ceased to be in the forefornt of his mind.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 06:04:28 -1000

Subject: Re: cyber-romance and adultery

> >Hi, this is my first reply after reading probably 100 messages. I don't see

> how Cyber-Romance can be considered adultery. You have to put it into

> perspective. When two people share an interest they can have a relationship

> with that interest but not have intamacey. It works both ways. Romance

> doesn't have to be intimate.

The thing that concerns me about this is that we are going back to the

physical-only definition of adultery. When a person is married, any

romantic exchange between him/herself and another of the opposite sex

takes away from the relationship with one's legal partner. I think there

is a big difference between friendship and romance. If people play at

romance, it pulls each toward the other, and saying "but we are not having

sex" is a bit - I don't know: false reasoning? Prevaricating? Of course

people who share interests are going to have interesting conversations,

feel comfortable with each other, etc. It is natural to enjoy the company

(even if it is non-present company) of people with commonalities. But I

think we delude ourselves if we think that a light flirtation, genltly

romantic comments and teasing, is not somewhat adulterous. It's like

mind-sex: it really does direct away from one's spouse the thoughts and

actions and feelings that would otherwise be strengthening the marital

relationship. It makes me uneasy when we begin to justify as "nothing,

really" the kinds of interactions that, where it 40 years ago and were

sent as letters to a married man or woman, would have been deemed, well,

divisive to the partner to whom the letters were NOT addressed. If one

is engaging in the types of conversations that one would NOT want a spouse

to hear, then I am uncomfortalble.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 02:38:13 -1000

Subject: Re: Pellicacy

A couple of thoughts on this always-difficult subject. In the midst of a

culture that is positively fixated on the sensual degree of sex and that

appears to be doing its best to completely overturn/eliminate the

traditional concepts of marriage, it sometimes is difficult to see things

in perspective. This seems to me a classic demonstration of why the Lord

provides revelation, to dispel those, in this case literal, illusions of

the senses. And, even more, to point out the ideal. Spiritual laws,

after all, are even more immutable than physical laws. You can disbelieve

in the law of gravity as you jump off a building, but the law continues to

hold - with less than pleasant results for you. Similarly, the Lord tells

us about spiritual laws to help us on the road to happiness. We can

disbelieve/ignore them, but the results for us are never as happy as they

would have been if we'd paid attention to the laws. In fact, we may make

ourselves miserable. And there certainly is no more dramatic

demonstration of this than the sexually "liberated" (read "licensed")

culture we live in, full of wrecked lives on every side. Pure sensuality

burns out at the marrow as much as it ever did!

The point here, it seems to me, is that our job is to try to help the

world go back - or forward - to square one, the ideal. For instance, a

quote from a Rev. Louis King article in an old Sons Bulletin:

"Yet with few men can the fountain of virtue be shut up during the

preceding age and reserved for a wife."(CL459)

"Few men! ...Are not these the same few to whom the Lord speaks when He

tells us that is not so difficult to live the life that leads to heaven?

Does He not also speak of serious repentance, once or twice engaged in,

becoming easier? Does not thought bring presence, the presence of untold

angelic hosts to assist us in the battle against evil? Is any man ever

tempted beyond that which he can sustain?

"The New Church numbers but a few... Are these not the few with whom the

evil of lust can be controlled? Are they not among the few who can attain

the ideal? We must be capable of it or why would the Lord devote one full

volume of His second advent to the establishment of it... Let us never

forget that idealism is the most precious gift the New Church has to offer

the world."

And what is the reward of applying this idealism and hanging in there?

"In all that comes to them, the youthful husband and the virgin wife

perceive and sensate things ever new, and thereby they are in a continual

initiation and thence in a lovely progression." (CL 323)

This is not to say we do not need to confront the unfortunate permission

realities of this whole unhappy cultural situation, just to recall what

star we're navigating by.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:47:31 -1000

Subject: Pellicacy

>>Trust and confidence and mutual good will are basically

what women want from a love relationship, too. As a matter of fact, isn't

that what we hope for in all our friendships, not just from romantic

relationships? I think we labor under a cultural assumption that there's

no correspondence between healthy relating in friendship and healthy

relating in romance, and there's no language that spans between these

two.<<

The reason I referred to the different degrees of premarital trust and

friendship is that they can be readily seen as positive relationships in

and of themselves or as preparatory steps towards marriage friendship.

Certainly one can have misguided or harmful friendships but we tend to look

at friendship in a generally good light whether it is a part of marriage or

not...more or less ideal; but still good.

On the other hand, when Swedenborg speaks of the degrees of premarital

sexuality he seems to be distinguishing between varying levels of disorder

-as if sexuality had a kind of gravity which pulls one downward unless it

is contained within the confines of marriage (or, at the very least,

something *like* marriage). It doesn't sound to me like he's saying it's

good to explore sexuality as a positive step towards marriage (as one might

explore a friendship with "marriage posibilities") He doesn't seem to say

that sex is a positive thing to be to engaged in casually (as one might

engage in a casual friendship with no marriage possibilities). He certainly

doesn't say that one should have a lot of sexual partners (like one might

have a lot of friends).

Swedenborg's degrees of sexual interact