SM

NN, I sense that you are trying to help me understand, but I am a slow learner.

NN at (184) I did miss this post: In general
Let me make something quite clear “eros” (&epsilon&rho&omicron&sigma) is NOT exactly the same thing as the modern english “erotic.”

ok…

NN at 184 (cont’d) “Eros encompassed what we might today call “romantic love” ~ certainly encompassing the sexual but not limited to it.”

I also read 190.

NN at 190: “Let us put it another way “eros” describes the type of love which exists between a husband and wife which should not properly exist between other people…”

I get that. But, what does the existence of “eros” whether romantic or sexual love between a husband and a wife have to do with establishing a “natural and God-given asymmetry between the genders in the relationship? I just don’t get this claim.

If anything, I would think the very nature of “eros” which is culminates in a sexual union is a very “leveling” experience. In other words, getting naked together and mutually pleasuring each other is a great equalizer of sorts. I can’t think of any other human experience that creates a physical and spiritual oneness–a single organic union–than two becoming one in sex. The idea that “eros”, whether or romantic or sexual, constitutes the basis for a natural, God-given asymmtrical hierarchy contradicts everything inherent about “eros” between a husband and wife.

NN, can you explain what you are seeing that I am missing?