In my last collaboration, I talked about the myth of romantic love, the bad expectations we have about it, the centrality we give it, the pains and frustrations it tends to bring, the unjust privileges that partner institution has. However, while it is necessary to point out the cultural construction of love to understand our dysfunctional form of relationship with sexually affective members, at the origin of all this is not only that kind of wedge that have told us about love, and it cannot explain that (average) pathological relationship with love only from the sociological or ideological sphere.

We have a tendency to seek in the social system that surrounds us (only) the origin of our conduct as a society, or to attribute (only) any cause of our social problems. And without any intention to whitewash the responsibilities of the system, I think the analysis is partial, and enough pride to explain our deep functioning. If these interpretations were round and unyielded, it would be enough to turn the political system over to also change our general behaviour, and as we know, this is not true.

It is necessary to question the model of romantic love, yes, but it is not enough to fully understand what happens to us or to bring about profound change. At the bottom are our internal viscera, whose functioning must also be understood from the psychological configuration of the individual and from the process of constructing our personality. If we want to bring about radical changes, we must at least look at the nature of our psycho-affective development and make changes to it.

We are born from our mother and our bond with her is affective-sexual, let's not forget. These first years of life constitute a stage of full affective dependence in which we acquire a nourishing and affective feeding of the attachment person. With quite satisfaction, we gradually began to feel able to go out into a wider world, with the protection we receive at home we have the sense of security we need for that challenge. At least I should.

Our first relationship with the mother, or with that person who fulfills the function of maternal age, is the one that establishes the pattern of the other futures. That's why it's so passionate to share sexuality and body with another person, and that's why it has so much power to create intimacy with someone, because it echoes that first love story that's at the core of life. If we had it, because we want to live again. But if we hadn't satisfied enough, and I'm going to do that, because we're just as in need, as adults. That is, these symbiotic relationships that only make sense in childhood.

Our society is very affectively dependent, because we have been very quick to send from dependency, believing that to achieve autonomy as soon as possible it was necessary to do so. This is a void, and the feeling is what is at the base of dissatisfaction as a society, which prepares us to the relationships of dependence. In order for affective sex to be otherwise, we have to look there, because there is the psychological origin of our excess love. If not, pink stories would not have the ability to cause such destructive effects on us.