I'm looking into my yellowed and aging copy of The Road Less Traveled, and I'm remembering that this book was very popular when it came out in 1978, and I kept reading in it, trying to figure out what everyone was "getting" that I wasn't.

The thing is, at the beginning of the chapter called The Myth of Romantic Love, he describes Romantic Love this way:
Quote:

To serve as effectively as it does to trap us into marriage, the experience of falling in love probably must have as one its characteristics the illusion that the experience will last forever. This illusion is fostered in our culture by the commonly held myth of romantic love, wherein the prince and princess, once united, live happily forever after. The myth of remantic love tells us, in effect, that for every young man in the world there is a young woman who was "meant for him," and vice versa. Moreover, the myth implies that there is only one man meant for a woman and only one woman for a man and this has been predetermined "in the stars." When we meet th person for whom we are intended, recognition comes through the fact that we fall inlove. We have met the person for whom all the heavens intended us, and since the match is perfect, we will then be able to satisfy all of each others needs forever and ever, and therefore live happily forever after in perfect union and harmony. Should it come to pass, however, that we do not satisfy or meet all of each other's needs and friction arises and we fall our of love, then it is clear that a dreadful mistake was made, we misread the stars, we did not hook up [sic- that expression means something different today] with our one and only perfect match, what we though was love was not real or "true" love, and nothing can be done about the situation except to live unhappily ever after or get divorced.

I don't think anyone on this board believes in The Myth of Romantic Love as glibly described by Peck above. I think this battle-scarred group knows that love is much more as described in the Ursula LeGuin quote at the bottom of my post.

...

I've just spent some time looking over the book, and I'm seeing things that are relevant to the present discussion.

At the end of the chapter on Ego Boundaries, he says
Quote:

The temporary loss of ego boundaries involved in falling in love and in sexual intercourse not only leads us to make commitments to other people from which real love may begin but also gives us a foretaste of... the more lasting mystical ecstasy that can be ours after a lifetime of love. As such, therefore, while falling in love is not itself love, it is a part of the great and mysterious scheme of love.

And to illustrate that he doesn't discount the importance of sex:
Quote:

There is another set of questions having to do with matters deliberately ommitted or glossed over in the discussion of love. When my beloved first stands before me naked, all open to my sight, there is a feeling throughout the whole of me: awe. Why? If sex is no more than an instinct, why don't I just feel "horny" or hungry? Such simple hunger would be quite sufficient to insure the propagation of the species. Why awe? Why should sex be complicated with reverence?

Alas, he doesn't say much about sex specifically.

In one anecdote, Peck talks about one client that he was not able to get through to. She "was vociferous in her complaints that I did not genuinely care for her in any way, shape, or form, and was interested only in her money." This went on for nine months, with him using the typical "therapist" style of relating to her-- reflecting her comments back to her, answering a question with a question, etc. Finally one day he departed from his training and told her how frustrated he was with their lack of progress. She smiled and said, "You really do care for me after all. If you didn't, you wouldn't feel so frustrated." He sums it up this way
Quote:

My reaction to Helen was meaningful and significant to her precisely because of the depth of my involvement with her and the intensity of our struggle together. We are now able to see the essential ingredient that makes psychotherapy effective and successful. It is not "unconditional positive regard," nor is it magical words, techniques or postures; it is human involvement and struggle. ... In short, the essential engredient of successful deep and meaningful psychotherapy is love.

Here he makes distinction between unconditional positive regard and love. This suggests that honest struggle is more loving than unconditional acceptance.

HD, I refer you to The Case of Kathy that starts on page 197 of the paperback. I think you'll find it really interesting.