What sex is for

"Sex is not for anything!" - So I have always said. But then I came across this, in Simone Weil's 'Forms of the Implicit Love of God':

Carnal love in all its forms, from the highest, that is to say true marriage or platonic love, down to the worst, down to debauchery, has the beauty of the world as its object. The love we feel for the splendor of the heavens, the plains, the sea, and the mountains, for the silence of nature which is borne in upon us by thousands of tiny sounds, for the breath of the winds or the warmth of the sun, this love of which every human being has at least an inkling, is an incomplete, painful love, because it is felt for things incapable of responding, that is to say, for matter. Men want to turn this same love toward a being who is like themselves and capable of answering to their love, of saying yes, of surrendering. When the feeling for beauty happens to be associated with the sight of some human being, the transference of love is made possible, at any rate in an illusory manner. But it is all the beauty of the world, it is universal beauty, for which we yearn.
This kind of transference is what all love literature expresses, from the most ancient and well-worn metaphors and comparisons to the subtle analyses of Proust.

Every biography has Weil a resolute virgin when she died at the age of thirty-four, in 1943. Yet she read enough to know what sex is for - 'to turn this same love toward a being who is like themselves and capable of answering to their love, of saying yes, of surrendering'. Weil saw God everywhere (and why not? God is everwhere!) and so she saw love of God implicit in love of any sort. Why not carnal love, then?

My love for D is carnal love, but it is certainly love. We are saying yes, surrendering.

No secrets

A flurry of revelations has left me with no secrets from D. She knows everything. She has seen this blog. It is not yet clear to me what this means for the blog, nor is it quite clear what it means for D, or for me. But I am happy to declare my love for her here, and to give any readers - there are very few of them - notice that if things go as I hope they will go, there will be nothing for me to report besides run of the mill intra-marital sex with C and spectacular extra-marital sex with D.

It is weird to have no secrets from D. The last person I had no secrets from was MRR, twenty years ago. I have always had secrets from C. I have had, and still have, secrets from the readers of this blog. I do not think secrets are always bad, and they are often very good. But it is also good to have someone from whom there are no secrets. God is a good choice - Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid - but if God is not an option, as in my case, it must be someone else. The bond that I have forged with D through sex has rendered secrecy unacceptable to me. It remains to be discovered whether, with my heart now open, with all my desires known, and with none of my secrets hidden, I am acceptable to D. I hope so.