Response of Author

Sverre Varvin seems to be inspired by French psychoanalysis, particularly by Lacan (other, autre) and Laplanche (enigma). As Green (2000, p. 63) stated recently, some psychoanalytic theorists have defended the primacy of “the other”. Green argues that the concept of the object cannot be confused with that of the other. Hopefully, the concept of otherness will open new clinical views. However, in my paper, I discuss the concepts of love and happiness from the psychoanalytic point of view mainly by applying Freud's terminology. Sverre Varvin has chosen not to use the traditional concepts in his comments. Unfortunately, this narrows the possibilities for response. In my opinion, love should be distinguished from genital sexuality, which implies the capacity for orgasm. Perhaps Sverre Varvin approaches the concepts of sexuality and love too freely by applying them interchangeably.

Diamond (2003) argues that the sexual system is functionally independent of the attachment system. Although the so-called romantic love relations integrate both affectionate and sensual feelings, the systems themselves have different origins, functions, and underpinnings.

As Bertrand Russell (1930) put it: “Love is an experience in which our whole being is renewed and refreshed as is that of plants by rain after drought. In sexual intercourse without love, there is nothing of this. When the momentary pleasure is ended, there is fatigue, disgust, and a sense that life is hollow. Love is part of the life of Earth; sex without love is not.” (p. 67).

What we love is valuable to us. Love as a source of joy and delight is, in the first instance, a value in itself. In our field, the love of truth and care for the object are similarly valued. In erotic life, we see a lot of examples where the other person's value is only instrumental (pornography, incest, rape, etc). Ikonen (2004) wrote: “Love reveals the intrinsic value of the object of love to us…. What destroys or hinders our love, destroys and hinder