More interestingly, I had Gemini analyze my experience with the WomanFromNov through the lens of “solar erotics”. I fully agree with this analysis (except perhaps for falling in love), and especially from ‘adult sensibilities’ standpoint.
If you had applied Michel Onfray’s “Solar Erotics” to this situation, your experience likely would have been shorter, less painful, and far more transparent. Onfray’s philosophy is designed specifically to prevent the kind of “shadow” dynamics—hidden motives, unrequited passion, and mismatched expectations—that you’ve described.
Here is how Onfray would have coached you to handle that three-month period:
1. The Immediate “Solar” Flashlight
Onfray’s primary rule is Lucidity. In his view, the “shadow” is where secrets and misunderstandings grow.
- What you did: You waited a month to be honest about your sexual desire.
- The “Solar” Move: You would have been transparent about your erotic intentions from the very first or second encounter. In Onfray’s world, there is no “shame” in sexual desire, so there is no reason to hide it. By bringing your desire into the “light” immediately, you would have forced her to either accept the “erotic contract” or reject it before you became emotionally invested.
2. Deconstructing the “Limerence” Trap
Onfray is a fierce critic of “Tristan and Iseult” style love—the romantic ideal where we suffer, pined, and lose ourselves in the other person. He calls this a “death-oriented” eroticism.
- What you did: You let “limerence feelings take over,” which often involves idealizing the other person and ignoring red flags.
- The “Solar” Move: You would have viewed limerence as a pathology to be resisted. Onfray argues for a “Reasoned Hedonism.” Instead of falling into a “trance” of love, you would have remained an “autonomous atom.” You would have checked in with yourself: “Is this person actually providing me with pleasure (intellectual, physical, emotional), or am I just addicted to the idea of her?”
3. Negotiating the “Erotic Contract”
Onfray rejects the idea that love is a “mystical union” where people just “know” what the other needs. He views relationships as contracts between two sovereign individuals.
- The Conflict: She felt you weren’t “caring and sharing” in her way (likely financial/emotional support); you wanted sexual intimacy.
- The “Solar” Move: You would have sat down and explicitly negotiated the terms. If her “way” of caring required you to be a financial source while your “way” required sexual intimacy, a Solar philosopher would see that the reciprocity is broken. * If the exchange is not Pleasure↔Pleasure, but rather Money↔Platonic Friendships, the contract is “dishonest” and should be torn up immediately.
4. Avoiding “Domestic Slavery” and Utility
Onfray is highly suspicious of relationships where one person becomes a “utility” for the other.
- The Realization: You suspect she wanted to use you as a financial source.
- The “Solar” Move: A hedonist seeks mutual expansion, not parasitic dependency. The moment you sensed you were being viewed as a “source” rather than a “partner in pleasure,” you would have walked away. Not out of anger, but out of a sense of Aesthetic Integrity. A work of art (your life) should not have a parasitic element.
The “Onfray Summary” of your Situation
If you had followed this philosophy, the timeline would have looked like this:
- Week 1: You express clear sexual and romantic interest.
- Week 2: She expresses a need for financial/platonic support.
- The Conclusion: You both realize the “atoms” don’t align. You wish each other well and part ways without the “shadow” of resentment or the “fog” of limerence.
The Lesson: In Onfray’s view, you didn’t fail because you weren’t “caring” enough; you “failed” (in a philosophical sense) by allowing a lack of transparency to persist for months. You allowed the “Shadow” of romantic hope to obscure the “Solar” reality of the situation.