Love's Unending Violence

I'm in love with a woman and all the evil parts of her

Oct 22, 2024

Finally out of my thinking slump!

Love and desire have long fascinated philosophers, scientists, and artists alike. These twin forces shape human relationships, influencing everything from our biological imperatives to our most intimate connections. While desire is often viewed as a force for growth, connection, or passion, it also harbors a more unsettling side—one that blends possession, decay, and destruction. Since I’ve been gone for a couple weeks, I’ve decided to start off with four unconventional explorations of love and desire: taxidermy as an act of eternal preservation, soul-jumping as a form of reincarnated reunion, the spread of evil through proximity, and how two damaged souls can heal together through shared suffering.

Taxidermy; Preservation Beyond Death

Taxidermy is the practice of preserving a dead body for display, a process most often associated with hunting or natural history museums. However, when viewed through the lens of love, taxidermy takes on a different meaning: the desire to keep someone, or something, forever. The idea of someone loving another person so much that they cannot bear to let go, even in death, is an extreme manifestation of desire’s possessive quality.

French sociologist Jean Baudrillard touches on this in Simulacra and Simulation when he describes how society is obsessed with preservation as a way of controlling reality. Taxidermy, in this context, reflects the human need to stave off decay, to keep someone "alive" through artificial means, which could be interpreted as the ultimate declaration of love (Baudrillard, 1994). The preserved body becomes a symbol of undying devotion, but also one of stagnation—a love that cannot evolve or grow.

From a psychological standpoint, this could be linked to attachment theory, where an intense fear of loss drives behaviors aimed at keeping the loved one physically present, even posthumously (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Taxidermy becomes a metaphor for a love that seeks to defy time, preserving the beloved in a suspended state, frozen between life and death.

Soul Jumping; Re-meeting in a New Body
In many cultures and philosophies, love is seen as transcending the boundaries of life and death. The concept of soul jumping—reincarnating into a new body after death to reconnect with a loved one—speaks to the idea that desire, particularly romantic desire, is so powerful that it can endure beyond the physical limits of one lifetime. Plato, in his work The Symposium, suggests that love is a search for one’s other half, a pursuit of a unity that was lost at the beginning of time (Plato, 1997). Soul jumping could be viewed as an eternal continuation of this quest, with lovers endlessly finding and losing each other across lifetimes.

From a metaphysical perspective, the idea of soul jumping can also be tied to theories of identity and consciousness. Philosopher Derek Parfit explored how continuity of self may not depend on the physical body but rather on the preservation of one’s memories and psychological characteristics (Parfit, 1984). If love is seen as an essential element of personal identity, then the desire to reunite with a lover might suggest that the soul—or consciousness—would seek out the beloved again, even in a new form.

Scientific perspectives on reincarnation often rely on anecdotal evidence of past life memories, as explored by Ian Stevenson’s work on children who recall details of previous lives (Stevenson, 2003). Though controversial, these studies suggest that the human mind might retain some aspects of consciousness after death, lending credence to the idea of soul jumping as a form of love transcending the finality of death.

Shake a Sinner’s Hand; Infection
Evil, much like love, can spread through human contact. The phrase "shake a sinner’s hand" evokes the idea that immorality, cruelty, or malice can transfer between individuals, like an infection. In social psychology, this phenomenon is often described as social contagion, where behaviors, attitudes, and emotions are transmitted through social networks (Christakis & Fowler, 2013). When we engage with others—especially those who may act out of malevolent intent—their influence can subtly change us, twisting our actions and perceptions.

This is also supported by psychoanalytic theory, which suggests that individuals are drawn to others who reflect their unconscious desires or fears. Sigmund Freud’s concept of transference describes how people project feelings from one relationship onto another, often re-enacting harmful dynamics (Freud, 1912). In this way, shaking a sinner’s hand becomes a metaphor for absorbing another’s negative energy, allowing evil to seep into one’s being.

Philosopher Hannah Arendt also discusses the banality of evil in her analysis of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Arendt argues that evil often spreads not through grand, malicious acts, but through small, thoughtless decisions made by individuals who fail to question their actions (Arendt, 1963). Evil, like an infection, spreads in subtle ways, often going unnoticed until it has taken root.

Become Worse Together, Heal Together; Two Negatives Make a Positive
The idea that two people can "become worse together and heal together" reflects the complexity of human relationships, particularly when both individuals are struggling with inner demons. This dynamic suggests that, in certain cases, mutual suffering can lead to mutual healing. Rather than love being a force of pure positivity, it can be transformative in its ability to bring out both the best and the worst in people.

In physics, two negative charges repel, but in certain contexts, such as the combining of two equally negative emotional states, there can be a neutralizing effect. When two people share a deep, raw understanding of each other’s pain, their relationship becomes a crucible for transformation. Research in couples therapy often highlights how co-regulation—the ability for two individuals to help regulate each other’s emotions—can create stability in even the most tumultuous relationships (Johnson, 2019).

This notion is also reflected in Carl Jung’s theory of the shadow self, where the parts of ourselves that we repress or reject (our worst traits) need to be acknowledged and integrated for healing to occur (Jung, 1951). When two people expose their shadows to one another, they confront not only their partner’s darkness but also their own. In some cases, this shared confrontation can lead to growth, a kind of healing through mutual destruction. It is a paradox—by acknowledging each other’s brokenness, two people can find wholeness.

The Liberation of Shared Pain and Power
Love is often portrayed in popular culture as something pure, tender, and nurturing—a "fluffy" ideal of mutual care and soft affection. However, for some, love’s most intense expressions are found in spaces where pain and violence meet. When violence in a relationship is consensual and understood as a form of mutual exploration, it becomes another way of experiencing desire, vulnerability, and connection. These dynamics are often more controversial but can be just as powerful and valid as the more commonly accepted forms of love.

French philosopher Georges Bataille explored the connection between violence, intimacy, and the dissolution of boundaries in relationships. In his work Erotism: Death and Sensuality, Bataille argues that violence and death are deeply connected to eroticism because they force the breakdown of individual barriers (Bataille, 1962). Love, in its most radical form, is about surrendering to another person, sometimes in ways that feel dangerous or violent.

Studies by Holvoet et al. (2017) indicate that consensual BDSM relationships, which often involve elements of domination, submission, and controlled violence, are characterized by high levels of trust and communication between partners. In traditional relationships, society often demands that love be gentle, self-sacrificing, and passive. But in consensually violent dynamics, love becomes an arena for raw honesty. Partners confront their darker desires and engage with the parts of themselves that crave control. Sharing this kind of connection can lead to a deep sense of intimacy, as both partners willingly expose their vulnerabilities through acts of violence.

Even in this context, violence does not have to be inherently negative. The liberation comes from the willingness to engage with and accept these intense emotions as part of the human experience. In some ways, violent love echoes themes from Nietzsche’s philosophy, where pain, struggle, and overcoming are central to human growth. Nietzsche argued that suffering is not something to avoid but something to embrace as part of the path to personal transformation (Nietzsche, 1887). In a relationship, the consensual experience of pain and violence can be seen as a shared journey—one that strengthens the bond between partners through mutual understanding and the shedding of societal expectations.

Non-Consensual Violence; Desire and Sensationalism
While consensual violence can lead to liberation and connection within relationships, non-consensual violence occupies a far more troubling, yet psychologically fascinating, space. For some individuals, violence—whether emotional, physical, or psychological—becomes intertwined with their understanding of love. This desire to experience or even seek out non-consensual violence is not simply a product of miscommunication or abusive dynamics; in certain cases, it is precisely what the person wants and seeks in a relationship. This begs the question: why do some individuals associate violence and suffering with love, and how does this become a central aspect of their desire?

Psychologists have long studied the phenomenon where individuals—often those who have experienced violence in childhood or early relationships—come to see abuse and love as indistinguishable. The cycle of abuse theory posits that those who grow up in violent or neglectful environments may learn to equate control, dominance, and pain with affection and care (Walker, 1979). In these instances, love is not seen as nurturing or protective but as something to be earned or endured through suffering. For these individuals, violence can feel like the only true form of love because it is what they have been conditioned to believe is real. The dramatic highs and lows of abusive relationships can even become addictive, as they trigger intense emotional responses that reinforce attachment to the abuser (Dutton, 1995).

For some, the sensation of being controlled or overpowered taps into deeper psychological desires. Psychoanalytic theory, particularly as developed by Sigmund Freud, argues that our unconscious minds often drive us to repeat early life experiences in adult relationships, even when those experiences are harmful (Freud, 1914). This is known as repetition compulsion, where individuals unconsciously seek out familiar pain and trauma in an effort to resolve it. In this sense, violence becomes a way of reenacting unresolved emotional conflicts, and for some, this reenactment is what they crave. The violence itself becomes a twisted form of emotional validation, a reassurance that their relationship is real because it mirrors the intensity of their formative experiences.

Another key aspect of the psychology of non-consensual violence in relationships is the interplay between masochism and self-destruction. Freud, in his essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," suggests that there is an innate drive in some individuals toward self-destruction, a death drive or Thanatos (Freud, 1920). For those who engage in relationships where non-consensual violence is present, this drive can manifest as a desire to be dominated, humiliated, or punished. The sensation of being hurt by someone they love may offer a perverse form of satisfaction or fulfillment, a release from the internal tension between desire and self-worth.

For some, the sensational aspect of non-consensual violence is not in spite of the violence, but because of it. There are individuals who only see violence as the ultimate expression of love because they have never experienced love in any other form. They crave the extremes—the highs and lows, the emotional chaos—and find "fluffy" or gentle love unsatisfying, even disingenuous. This kind of relationship may become a spectacle, a stage upon which violence plays out as a way to confirm the intensity of their bond. In these cases, violence isn’t just tolerated—it is wanted, sought after, even needed.

But what about those who seek to enact violence in love, not as victims but as perpetrators? This, too, can be understood through psychological frameworks. Individuals who engage in non-consensual violence may do so out of a deep-seated need for control and power, often rooted in their own insecurities or past traumas. They may feel that love requires dominance, that to truly possess someone is to control their every move, action, and feeling. This desire for total control often leads to the enactment of violence, justified in the abuser’s mind as an expression of care or protection.

In more extreme cases, individuals with certain personality disorders—such as narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder—may engage in non-consensual violence as a way to fulfill their emotional and psychological needs. The abuser may feel no empathy for their partner, seeing them only as an object of their desire and control. For them, violence isn’t a byproduct of love—it is love, or at least the only way they know how to express it. They thrive on the sensation of power, of seeing their partner suffer and knowing they are the cause. This dynamic blurs the line between desire and destruction, leading to relationships where violence is not just tolerated but is the driving force.

For individuals socialized in these environments, violence becomes the only acceptable way to express desire or affection. As such, the link between love and violence becomes not just a personal or psychological issue, but one deeply embedded in cultural norms and expectations (Connell, 2005).

The reality is that while non-consensual violence in relationships is damaging and destructive, it is also complex. For some, the desire to experience or inflict violence is inextricably linked to their understanding of love. The sensationalism of this kind of connection comes from its intensity, from the way it challenges societal norms of what love should be. For those involved, the violence itself can feel like the only true expression of affection, even if it is harmful.

Sex

Sex has long been a topic of debate—celebrated as a sacred act by some, denounced as vile or unnecessary by others. Those who dismiss sex as unnecessary often argue that it is base, primal, and distracting, claiming that true human connection can be achieved without the need for physical intimacy. However, this view fails to recognize the transformative power of sexual union and the deeply spiritual and psychological dimensions it unlocks. To those who claim sex is unnecessary, the very essence of human desire and connection is being misunderstood. Sex is not just a biological function; it is a sacred act through which two people become one, merging their bodies, emotions, and spirits in a way that no other form of intimacy can achieve. The philosopher Georges Bataille, in his work The Accursed Share, explores the connection between eroticism, sacrifice, and unity. Bataille argues that eroticism, particularly sexual intimacy, represents a form of sacred transgression, an experience that breaks the boundaries between individuals and allows them to enter a shared, liminal space where they lose themselves in each other (Bataille, 1988). This act of becoming one transcends mere physical pleasure and leads to a profound sense of unity and connection that is vital for human fulfillment.

The sacredness of sex lies in its ability to make us vulnerable. In a world where we are often guarded, protected by social norms and our own emotional defenses, sex strips away these barriers and exposes us in our most raw, unfiltered state. When we are naked—both physically and emotionally—before another person, we reveal parts of ourselves that are otherwise hidden. The desire that grows from this shared vulnerability is one of the most powerful forces we can experience as human beings. It is through this desire that we connect with another on a level deeper than words or actions can reach. The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, in Totality and Infinity, explores how intimacy with another person can serve as a profound ethical encounter, where the other becomes a mirror to our own existence, reflecting back both our capacity for love and for destruction (Levinas, 1969). Sexual intimacy allows us to see the other not just as a partner, but as an extension of ourselves.

Yet, to deny the "vile" nature of sex would be to deny its true complexity. Sexual desire, while sacred, is also inherently primal. It taps into the basest instincts of human nature—lust, hunger, possession. These are not refined or sanitized impulses; they are raw and, at times, violent. In fact, part of what makes sex so powerful is that it forces us to confront the darker sides of ourselves and our desires. Sex is where human beings can momentarily surrender control, indulging in a form of vulnerability that is chaotic and unrestrained. This vileness is not something to be shunned but embraced as part of the dual nature of desire. It is through this rawness that we find liberation, shedding the layers of civilized behavior that often constrain us and prevent us from feeling fully alive.

Arguing that sex is both necessary and vile positions it as a fundamental human experience that defies simplistic categorization. To those who claim that sex is "unnecessary" or "vile," I argue that it is precisely the vileness of sex that makes it necessary. Without the element of primal instinct and surrender, sex would lose its transformative power. It is through the acceptance of both the sacred and the vile that we experience the fullness of intimacy. In this way, sexual intimacy acts as a mirror for the human condition itself—complicated, messy, and full of contradictions.

From a psychological standpoint, sexual intimacy is also vital for maintaining emotional closeness in relationships. Numerous studies have shown that couples who engage in regular sexual activity report higher levels of relationship satisfaction, emotional bonding, and overall well-being (Byers, 2011). The release of oxytocin during sex, often called the "bonding hormone," plays a crucial role in facilitating trust and attachment between partners (Carter, 1998). This physiological response underscores the argument that sex is not merely a recreational activity but a biologically ingrained way for humans to maintain connection and intimacy.

Moreover, sexual desire is not something that diminishes with time but grows and evolves, becoming a vital component of long-term relationships. Couples who continue to explore each other sexually often find that their desire deepens, becoming a core element of their connection. The act of engaging in sex, even when it feels messy, is a way of continually reaffirming the bond between partners. It says, "I see you in all your human complexity, and I desire you still." In this way, sex becomes both an acknowledgment of the sacredness of the other person and a way of embracing the chaotic, imperfect nature of human desire.

Love is not always soft or gentle; sometimes, it is fierce, hungry, and overwhelming. And it is in these moments of surrender, where we allow ourselves to be both sacred and vile, that we experience love in its truest form.

Thank you for the reminder, mysterious commenter, to cite my sources <3

References

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin Books.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Little, Brown and Company.
Freud, S. (1912). The Dynamics of Transference.
Johnson, S. M. (2019). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection. Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1951). Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Princeton University Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Guilford Press.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press.
Plato. (1997). The Symposium (A. Nehamas & P. Woodruff, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
Stevenson, I. (2003). European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. McFarland.
Carnes, P. (1997). The Betrayal Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships. Health Communications.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives. Allyn & Bacon.
Freud, S. (1914). Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through (Further Recommendations on the Technique of Psycho-Analysis II). In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12).
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Penguin.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The Battered Woman. Harper & Row.
Bataille, G. (1962). Erotism: Death and Sensuality. City Lights Books.
Holvoet, L., Huys, W., Coppens, V., & De Herdt, E. (2017). Consensual BDSM relationships: The role of shared desires and mutual respect in maintaining healthy dynamics. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(4), 544-556.
Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals. Dover Publications.
Bataille, G. (1988). The Accursed Share, Volume I: Consumption. Zone Books.
Byers, E. S. (2011). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 48(2-3), 290-300.
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23(8), 779-818.
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Duquesne University Press.

The Chamber

Discussion about this post