Paper Assignment 1

James Nelson is a strong believer in that the level of the relationship should dictate the level of physical intimacy. By this I mean that the amount of compassion and love in the relationship should be expressed through sexual fulfillment, according to Nelson. Nelson describes four dimensions which are not only components of love but necessary dimensions in order to satisfy sexually and amorously. These four dimensions are Epithymia, Eros, Philia, and Agape. Epithymia is the first of the four dimensions. This is the dimension of love that involves the sexual desire and fulfillment. This dimension involves all the physical aspects and expressions of love. This is a crucial element as all humans have strong desire to satisfy their bodily desires. Eros, the second dimensions of love, could be argued that it is the most natural and deep dimension of all. Eros is the yearning to be united with another. Nelson states it this way “Eros is aspiration and desire for the beloved” (Nelson, pg. 110). This is one of the most basic human instincts. I believe that Nelson would argue this point, by describing how Eve was created for Adam as he craved for the compassion of another. This predates the desire for physical fulfillment and as such can be considered more natural or innate. Philia is the third dimension of love and is a very interesting aspect of it. Philia is the type of love found in friendship. This can sometimes be described as brotherly love, which makes sense in the fact that the city of brotherly love is Philadelphia. The root words are the same. This type of love can be just as strong as or stronger than any other, because many times the people who experience this have been through a lot of emotional distress with each other to get to this point. This only strengthens the bond. Nelson’s last dimension and possibly the most pure is the term agape. Agape is the dimension of love that does not require any contribution from another. This is a risky dimension as the person who gives this love freely gives it unconditionally. This means that they do not need another person to return this love. This makes this love the most powerful and is found in the example of God’s love, which is unwavering though so many do not return this love. This is a perfect example because nothing is needed, nor can be done to deserve this love. Nelson describes in detail how the four dimensions need each other to be successful. He says, “The different dimensions of love need each other for love’s wholeness” (Nelson, pg. 112). Nelson primarily stresses how epithymia and eros need each other. Epithymia, which is the sexual desire portion of Nelson’s dimensions, cannot be fully realized without eros, the uniting of love within two people. Without eros, epithymia just becomes as Nelson puts it just a “need-pleasure.” The same concept is involved with eros needing epithymia. Without epithymia, eros loses its passion and power. Also eros and epithymia need philia, especially in marriage. If you only have uniting love and physical passion you cannot further build your relationship. Philia, which involves friendship and co humanity, allows for the two to become closer emotionally which can only benefit eros and epithymia facets of the relationship. Finally dealing with the agape dimension Nelson uses very strong words in mentioning its importance. “But the other elements of love without agape are ultimately self-destructive” (Nelson, pg 113). Having the agape feature, which is total self giving to another regardless of circumstances, can culminate with the other three to make the strongest relationship. It allows for the partners to know that everything in the relationships is done for what is best for each other not for the self. This ingredient of sacrifice is crucial to promote epithymia, eros, and philia. I believe that this viewpoint of sexual morality is the most logical of all the ones we have discussed and can be helpful even in religious settings. The intensity of the love between two people should decide the appropriateness of sexual intimacy. As compared to the Catholic viewpoint, where the only true form of sex can be under marriage and for procreation, this viewpoint allows for expression of true love. Ritualistic tradition that sets rigid rules should not be an influence on how to properly convey physical love. Why does marriage have to be sanctified on paper through a church? Shouldn’t marriage be when two people have fully given themselves to each other spiritually and to their god? These are the considerations that should be made when two people are deciding how to satisfy each others physical and emotional needs. Secondly, in comparing this to the Bellioti article, I believe it can work alongside with it. I don’t believe that everyone should sit down and write out an equation for every time they have sex, but Bellioti’s equation is built on perspective based decision making as each couple will come to different conclusions. This works well with Nelson, because Nelson is saying that you should allow for the love in the relationship to decide sexual morality, which is perspective based as well. Concluding, Nelson is an author who firmly stands on the position that two people’s love can only be expressed correctly based on their decision making of how strong the relationship is. His four dimensions suitably encompass the different characteristics of love. These four dimensions accurately communicate the physical, emotional, and spiritual attributes that must be present in a successful relationship.

Works Cited
James B Nelson, Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian (Minneapolis, MN: Augstary, 1978).