March Musings

Matt on Marriage

Actor Matt Damon has come out and said something about marriage.
“It’s a ridiculous idea” says the man. “Because it’s crazy – to spend your life with one person and not be totally driven crazy.”

Matt Damon is happily married, has no apparent intention of leaving his wife and two daughters and explains unreservedly that his wife is the best thing that has ever happened to him. And yet he still declares that marriage is unworkable, ridiculous and conceptually insane.

Well done, Mr. Damon. You have started something but who is going to take this statement to a logical debate? Who is there out there who is going to question it further, concluding one way or the other about its purpose, its stability as the mainstay of family life and sexual fulfilment?

I’m not sure that I am that person but I would like to have a stab at setting a debate of sorts.

I think that Matt Damon is saying something rather important.
Those who choose to get married do so with the notion that they have found a life partner that they would like to spend the rest of their lives with. They have come to the conclusion that they do not desire or want another partner and that this is how they want to live their life.

Or do they?
Is this the absolute reason why people choose to get married?
Are there not other factors in play?

Do people get married because it is the thing to do, the expectation rather than what they actually want?

A friend of mine recently told me that he got married because everyone else was doing so. It wasn’t that he felt he was going to miss the boat. He just felt that he was expected to find a wife, marry her, have children and live happily ever after.
At the time when his friends were getting married, he had been in a relationship for a couple of years. It appeared that the next stage of endorsement for the relationship was the matrimony. He married his girlfriend, not because she was “the one” but because she happened to be around at the time.

Another friend of mine also recently told me that he got married because he wanted to have children. To do so out of wedlock would not have been right. He did the expected, got married with full pomp and ceremony and duly fathered two delightful children.

Another friend got married because he believed in the dream. He loved his partner. He thought that his life was secure and stable and that he would never want to feel sexual or emotional intimacy with another woman. He loved his woman completely and he wanted to tell the world that this was his chosen woman.

None of these friends are still with their wives.
Friend number one tried really hard to maintain the relationship but the truth of the matter was that he never really had that intimacy and affinity with his wife, even when they were dating.

Friend number two had thought that he was doing the right thing. He thought that he could maintain a relationship for life but there was something lacking that made him look elsewhere, despite the fact that he loved his wife and desperately wanted to be there for his children.

Friend number three did love his wife too. He had married her for all the supposed correct reasons, i.e. he loved her, wanted to share all of his passions with her.
He changed.
He didn’t turn into a monster. He didn’t lose all of his moral grounding. He didn’t change in a negative way. He simply changed.
The man who married at the age of 28 was not the same man who divorced at the age of 42. They were incomparable people yet were the same person. The 28 year old had grown. That is all, and because of this, he had outgrown what he deemed to be an outmoded existence that did not fulfil him.

Each one of my friends has, in their own way, understood the craziness of the concept of marriage.
It hasn’t worked for any of them, and just like Matt Damon suggested would be the case for him, none of them has rushed back into another marriage. None of them wants to get remarried. In fact, none of these three even live with their current partners of fuck buddies.

It is absolutely right to consider the absurdity of expecting that a couple of people who constantly live together do not have their moments of distress with one another. There has to be times when life is not as positive as it once was but that is not to say that one disagreement or discretion means that the relationship is doomed to termination.
The same could equally be said of couples who do not live together. A relationship cannot be on a permanent high. There has to be times when the connection is slightly tempered by other factors, however hard that is to accept.

Ultimately, the trick is being able to talk about it and not pretend that there is nothing wrong.
If only people would be honest with one another about the state of their relationship and how they feel, it would make life so much easier to manage. It may be painful to acknowledge that your partner is not attracted to you, either on a temporary or permanent basis, but it is far easier to intelligently manage this than be confronted by an intuition that is twisting and turning a range of notions and ideas in your head.

This is precisely what is happening to a friend currently.

Maybe Matt Damon is only half right. Let’s replace the word ‘marriage’ with ‘relationship’. Does the actual ceremony take away from the fact that as human beings we have a difficulty in sustaining long-term partnerships?

If we know that marriages or relationships are ridiculous and that spending a life time with one partner is bound to bring about times when you want to throttle someone, why on earth do we continue to place this type of relationship on a pedestal, providing generation after generation with an unrealistic, unattainable expectation? It is not fair!

Having said all of the above, it doesn’t mean to say that it is unworkable.
For the three friends that I previously mentioned, I have three more where their marriages work impeccably. For the three friends I have mentioned previously, I have three more that have marriages that rock to and fro yet exist in one form or another without provocation or angst.
For the three friends who have walked away from their marriages determined to remain single, I have three more who have found intimacy and love with others. Just because one marriage or even two or three relationships do not work, it doesn’t mean to say that a monogamous relationship will never work. Nothing is or should be set in stone.

Matt Damon recognises the ludicrous expectations of marriage yet is prepared to have a go at it because, for him and for his wife, that is what they have chosen to expect.
But why do we never consider the alternatives?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Bigamy
Here’s another question.

Why is it illegal to be a bigamist yet you cannot get sent to prison for having an extra-marital relationship?

I was thinking about this the other day whilst driving through suburbia, full of semi-detached houses with the nuclear family of mum, dad and 2.4 children residing in these havens of potential unreality.

As I drove down a road with hundreds of houses lining either side of the street, I wondered how many of the residents were truly monogamous. When I am talking about monogamy here, I am thinking about those who have not had a sexual kiss, fuck or fondle with another person other than their partner. Obviously, I assume that everyone has had a mind fuck about having sex with someone else, even it is the cliché of a grope with George Clooney or a pondering of what really lies beneath Kylie Minogue’s gold lame hot pants.

Why is bigamy illegal? Is it because it is morally corrupt? In which case, as I said, why are those of us who fuck around not being sent to either a prison or hospital to pay repentance for our sins or to be cured of our over-indulgent libido?

Is bigamy illegal because there are some monetary implications in it? I don’t think so.

Is bigamy illegal to prevent dishonesty and protect innocent human beings from being abused in some way? Possibly but that still doesn’t explain why additional sexual relationships are acceptable, at least in the eyes of the law.

Quite frankly, going back to Mr. Damon, I cannot understand why anyone would want to get married twice. I certainly wouldn’t want to get married again, and I cannot see why someone would want to marry two people other than to confirm some sort of parity in affection between the two people in his or her life. And isn’t that bizarre in itself? As I have said before, I adore being told that I am wanted and needed. I adore the genuine affirmation that comes when a connection between two people is so right but why on earth would I need another marriage to do that?
I want to hear words and I want the affection and intimacy demonstrated in real things, not a piece of paper that allegedly ties one person to another.

But then, I’m not sure that anyone should be tied to another human being at all – unless you fancy a little bondage of course.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Breaking Hearts

A friend spoke to me about her lover. She was explaining that he had told her he was frightened of “breaking her heart”. He explained how he did not want her to leave her husband, not because he didn’t love her but because he couldn’t really cope with that sort of pressure.
He wanted to maintain his freedom at all costs but he also had commitments to his children and to the mothers of his children that meant he just couldn’t give the type of commitment that he thought my friend required.
He said that he thought her desires and needs would ultimately lead to him breaking her heart as he would undoubtedly reject her at some point.

On one hand, one has to admire his honesty. On another hand – what an egotistical prat! Who on earth does he think he is to presume that he has the power to make or break this woman? Does she not have a mind of her own?

Some months ago, I was given a timely reminder that I was responsible for my happiness; no-one else. It was spelled out to me quite clearly. It was something that I should consider absolutely.
It was the right thing to say.
My happiness is of my own making. Naturally, some people contribute to that but ultimately it is me that chooses to either be happy or not.

So what does that all say about broken hearts? Bloody stupid phrase, by the way!

Realistically, the only person who can break your heart is – you!
Others might put a dirty great big spanner in the works but it is up to you how you manage this and how you move forward. Just as with any mental illness, being in love is something that has to be dealt with by the person foolish enough to fall into such unrealistic states.
But of course, it is not quite that straight forward. If not responsibility, there has to be some consideration from others who contribute to your state of wellbeing. A society totally focused on the passion and requirements of the individual without any consideration for others is not a positive place to be. Doing good for and by others has to be a societal pleasure!

All of this made me think about a film I once saw starring John Malkovich and Michelle Pfeiffer.
If you have never seen this movie, then do so. It is an intriguing look at the dimensions of relationships, power, greed, love, expectations, societal norms and so forth.

Here is the summary from www.imdb.com (another must for those who are interested in films).

Set in France around 1760, the Marquise de Merteuil needs a favour from her ex-lover, Vicomte de Valmont. One of the Marquise de Merteuil's ex-lovers, Gercourt, is betrothed to a young, virtuous, woman called Cecile de Volanges. The Marquise would like Valmont to seduce Cecile before her wedding day, thus humiliating Gercourt. Meanwhile, Valmont has a conquest of his own in mind: Madame de Tourvel, a beautiful, married, and God fearing woman. The Marquise doesn't think that Valmont can seduce Mme de Tourvel. She tells him that if he can provide written proof of a sexual encounter with Mme de Tourvel, she will offer him a reward: one last night with her. Valmont, however, will find himself falling in love with Mme de Tourvel, and facing the deadly jealousy of the Marquise de Merteuil. All along, Cecile de Volanges is used as a pawn in this game of sexual conquest and scorned love.

Malkovich (Vicomte de Valmont) goes about getting the beautiful Pfeiffer to fall in love with him.
Spoiler alert for those who do not wish to know what happens.

She does fall in love with him, to the point of utter despair when she cannot see him and when he tells her that he no longer loves her, or possibly that he never loved her in the first place.
And yet, on returning to the Marquis he says, “I ended by falling on my knees and pledging her eternal love. And do you know that, at that time, and for several hours afterwards, I actually meant it.” (Ho, ho – how true! Or no ho-ho’s at all. How utterly sad that he couldn’t admit to his love lasting a darn sight longer than several hours).

Madame de Touvel’s heart does get broken, irretrievably.

When I first watched this film, I thought this a little far fetched. How could anyone suffer physical ailment because of a lack of love? Could someone really die of a broken heart? Could this woman really be that pathetic?
I have since softened my approach to her and her demise.

I still think it is impossible to believe in other people breaking your heart. As I stated previously, is it not within each of us to be responsible for our own happiness? Of course this is the case. A broken hearted person manages the heart from within; using the body, the mind and the soul to either further damage or recuperate. The perpetrator has not done the damage. They have merely instigated it.

But poor Michelle, I couldn’t get out of my mind. For years and years, this character has sat uncomfortably on my mind.

I think we’re back to libidos folks – just as I was mentioning in the story that I wrote recently.
I am now suggesting that Madame de Touvel did not die of a broken heart because the Vicomte rejected her. She died of a broken heart because she could not manage her desires.
She died of an expectation and a hope.

This man had come along, awakening her from a sexual hibernation, had declared his passionate and in my opinion, his absolute and genuine affection for her, and had then deliberately buggered off, warping and manipulating her mind, and knowing that he was doing so.
Through him, she had found a desire for sex that was almost painful when it was unattainable. Through him, she had found a taste for life that she did not know existed.
Now one could argue, quite rightly, that she shouldn’t have been so damned dependant, and that she should have used this newfound desire for life more effectively.
But one can understand and even empathise with her position on this.
It wasn’t very pleasant of the Vicomte to declare his absolute passion for the woman one week and then either feign or genuinely offer her indifference the next. Maybe he had a sudden fit of cold feet, feeling that what he had said was too honest for him to deal with let alone her, but that does not excuse what he did next.

What this man had given her, and then possibly unbeknowingly robbed her of was a path in life that she did not know had existed for her. She had been married to a much older man with little interest in her or sex. She had been utterly devoted to and indoctrinated by the beliefs of the church. Her insular and insulated life offered her no escape for thoughts or feelings and all of a sudden, she saw a new route.
Sadly for her, she chose to consider this route only with him in mind. When that was clearly not within his expectation or desire or ability, then she could not cope.

Her death was brought on by an absolute helplessness of ever being able to travel along the route that she knew was the right one for her. Due to a misguided and hopeless belief in love, she and indeed the viewers, assumed that her heart was broken by a man who spurred her love.
It really wasn’t and isn’t that simple.

Yet again, we have an example of the gross expectations we humans place upon one another without the ability to communicate effectively in either maintaining relationships or running away from them.

As for my friend, she’s not going to die of a broken heart. This man is not her soul-mate, whatever she may currently think, and because of that he will not break her heart. And even if he was her soul-mate, then she is shrewd enough to fall down, pick herself up and move forward.
Basically, she just likes the good fuck that he gives her.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

And talking of good fucks……

I realised that with all my pontificating about monogamy and relationships recently, I have seriously neglected talking about orgasms and fucks in recent postings.

I will make amends shortly. I’m not sure how I am going to make amends but I will think on and hopefully post something soon.
I think perhaps though, it will be based around an arousal that takes place from time to time which elevates me to a state of total ecstasy. I want to shortly explain what happens to me when I incontrollably spurt my fuck juices all over the place and for many prolonged seconds. I want to explain how fucking good it feels to have orgasm after orgasm, still emitting such quantities of liquid that physiologically seem impossible.

Men and women out there, I will explain what sadly still seems to be ignored or acknowledged; that women can fill buckets if they are fucking in the right way.

Perhaps that is what actually killed Madame de Tourvel. She’d had a sopping wet orgasm for the first time in her life, and nobody had bothered to explain how it happened, how it could happen again and if all else failed, how she could DIY.