Big issues sometimes need little steps, which is why I am content that the Guardian group newspapers are continuing the theme started last week on infidelity.
As last week’s article was in the Observer and this week’s in the weekend Guardian, I’m wondering if the editors talk to one another, such is the familiarity of theme.
However, there were differences; some of which I would like to comment on.
Big issues sometimes need little steps even if the little steps aren’t quite accurate, even if they misinform or are contrary to what some would consider as an enlightened, thoughtful approach. It’s useful to have the mere mention of the words ‘infidelity’ and ‘monogamy’ in an article so that people can begin to question their own values set against such emotive notions.
Of course there’s a ‘however’ though because I have a few issues with the writer of this particular article.
Julie Powell is an American author who had an affair.
She met with an old flame from college days. The sparks of sexuality were still there and they had a relationship.
She calls it an affair but I think, from my definition, it was a relationship.
She explains that at first it was the mere fun of it, the excitement and passion, the naughtiness, the horniness but then she realised that she was, oh dearie me, “in love”.
The article continues to progress through Powell’s reparations package, how she now understands love with her husband even more, that infidelity is fine as it can bring a couple closer together and that really we are moreorless back to square one; monogamy rules ok!
I’m actually beginning to think that using infidelity as some sort of mechanism for improving another relationship or marriage is, quite frankly, about as shallow as you can get. Admittedly, people might not enter into an affair with that in mind but some do. Not only that, for those of us who do not enter into affairs with any ulterior motives, it is demeaning and erroneous to suggest that there is a singular causal factor or a multiple of satisfactory outcomes that are so straight forward and even matter of fact.
There is the notion that those who commit adultery have some basic options. Either they patch up the marriage and pat each other on the back for coming through this tough time, or they walk away from the marriage, bitter and twisted by the deceit and the guilt.
There is no third way.
Come to think of it, there probably isn’t!
Only nothing is that straight forward, and nothing should be seen as that simplistic.
In some ways, I actually admire this woman for speaking out.
If more people were honest about infidelity then maybe, it would bring further discussions about the reality of monogamy as a slightly flawed existence (in its cultural norm and rules that currently exist).
Julie Powell raises some interesting points, and mentions some aspects of her relationship with ‘D’ that resonate entirely with this particular reader, but there is also a smugness that befits the born-again Christian that I can barely stomach.
Take this little phrase – “I’d never deny the hurt my actions caused, to my husband, to me, maybe even (who knows?) to my lover. But the fact is that as we stood amid the rubble, Eric and I looked at one another and saw things we hadn't seen before. That hurt, but it also made us realise that everything had collapsed for reasons we'd been ignoring, and that we valued what remained enough to try to build a new home for it………….And here Eric and I stand now, on a far shore, closer than we were before, and stronger. So, no. To those who want endless punishment, who want me in my scarlet A, I cannot comply. I cannot say that I regret.”
So, she got married, had an affair, went through a pretty tumultuous time when her husband found out. They split up, they got back together and because of all of that, coming though it with the help of counselling, it was all worthwhile because they are stronger as a couple than ever before.
Fine. Good for them.
But it still doesn’t answer the unrealistic expectations of monogamy on people and indeed society.
More of that later.
I can just see this couple going around the great US of A, smugly telling their story in a sort of “I kissed a girl but I’m ok now” kinda way. What does Powell mean when she says her actions caused “maybe (hurt) even (who knows) to my lover?”
Did she not stop to find out if he was a little upset? Did she actually think about this person’s feelings at all as she rushed on the bandwagon of condemnation of infidelity for anything other than a gluepot mechanism for marriage?
Isn’t that all rather dismissive?
Following on from my previous writing, did she actually really love this ‘D’ or had she simply discovered or rediscovered her libido? Did she mistake the fucking good sex that she was having for love? From what she has written, there doesn’t seem to be the foundations of anything else that suggests a deep intimacy with her lover.
Maybe it is my turn to be smug now but there is a huge difference between having sex with someone where you find your stagnating libido and having a meaningful relationship with someone that incorporates all aspects of sexuality and togetherness, that combines mind, body, soul – spirituality, feelings, passions.
If you have the latter, then the walking away from it, the dismissiveness of the ‘affair’, the returning to a previous life is probably not on the cards.
Sometimes another relationship is life-changing. Sometimes there is no turning back, and in some ways there shouldn’t be a turning back.
Sometimes, the affair is a recognition of a person who has been entrapped in another existence; a soul who has never been enabled to be the person that they really are. Such realisations mean that repairing the initial relationship is not even a consideration. It is not feasible because the person having the affair has moved on, has become another person or has found himself or herself as the person that he or she was meant to be.
NB readers, please read that passage carefully for in our world of monogamy and coupledom, it is easy to misread that last phrase. They have found themselves as another person, not found another person. Very important difference!
I’m not sure that if you have had the sort of spiritual, sexual, emotional growth and togetherness that I have experienced in another relationship that you can realistically ‘return’ or even use new experiences within the initial marriage. Some would clearly disagree, and maybe I am wrong but there is no point in dwelling on this.
Time to move on.
I don’t know who this Andrew G Marshall is but he’s clearly got something going for him because the Guardian/Observer has now quoted him twice in consecutive weekends!
His theory is based on the fact that couples who have to suffer the trauma of indiscretion are often the closest of couples. The notion is that in order to prevent being as hurt as you were, you will work extremely hard on the relationship and therefore get the rewards and benefits of such a relationship that would have been there had you worked hard on it in the first place.
That is, that if you had been attentive and loving in the first place, there would not have been an affair at all.
Me doth protest!
Firstly, this is assuming that people have extra, additional relationships because there is something wrong with their marriage or their primary relationship.
Sometimes this might be the case. Sometimes, someone will enter into a relationship with another not even realising the flaws in their marriage until they have experienced a range of fabulous moments with their lover. Sometimes, they will never realise this as a reason for entering into an affair because it isn’t the reason!
Not everyone has an affair for a reason. Some people have an affair for a multiplicity of reasons. Some reasons evolve as the affair progresses but not all people have an affair because there is something wrong in their initial relationship.
Secondly, this is assuming that monogamy is the ‘be all and end all’ of relationships, and that it is something that we should all aspire to.
Some people don’t actually want monogamy. Some people find it intimidating, strangling, suppressive, inconceivable, unattainable.
Thirdly, I am still not sure that I like this contrived notion of ‘working’ at a relationship. If something is really in need of such hard work, is it actually viable?
And following on from that point, fourthly, there seems to be no understanding of the notion of fluctuation, of flowing, of the fact that there are no constants and nor should there be.
Ideally, one would like to think that there is constancy in relationships because when you are at the heart of one, when you feel that you cannot possibly feel more connected to a person than this absolute totality of oneness, then the horror of it disappearing is inconceivable and abhorrent.
Sadly, life is not so kind as to work in a way that connects people together in perpetual bliss.
Can I say this now for it is extremely important?
This is not to say that it cannot work. People can be locked together if there is reason, give, take, respect, understanding, honesty, appreciation that we change etc.
It does not have to be stagnation. The lock doesn’t have to be stifling.
But this sort of living, as far as I am concerned (and it is a very personal stance) requires a completely different interpretation of monogamy.
I could be monogamous. I have the capacity to be monogamous. In some ways, it possibly is an aspiration. I’m just not convinced that I can be monogamous with my current partner, the reason being that I do not get enough now from the relationship.
At the beginning of the article, Powell states that “At the centre of our relationship was a deep understanding. That we knew each other so well seemed proof of a love superior in all ways to all others. If you had told me that I was capable of doing anything that could erode the faith of this most loyal of men, I'd never have believed you.”
Was there? Was there really?
If there was such a deep sense of understanding, then how come she had an affair without telling her husband? If they knew each other so intimately how come it needed a search on the internet rather than an intuition from the soul to know that he was being ‘cheated’ on?
I know that I am being simplistic but really, can we ever know someone that much? Do we have the capacity as human beings to be that honest? Or do we get guarded by a misguided empathy where we make assumptions about what the other person wants or doesn’t want to know?
I could be monogamous if there was no expectation from either party of total sexual fidelity.
I could be monogamous if my partner and I were honest about our feelings for one another and for other people. It may not be easy to have to cope with destructive emotions and your responses to them but it might be easier than to deal with total loss.
I could be monogamous if I felt that there was a connection that went beyond the ephemeral, that went deep to the soul, to the heart, to the mind – that scorched a bond that however frequently you tried to ignore its significance kept pulling you back to the scary and sometimes intimidating realisation that this form of monogamy could work!
So I return once more to the old, old story – or so it seems at the moment, of the reality of monogamy and the hopeless either/or solutions that our society seems to kick up without considering a third or fourth or fifth way.
Take this paragraph if you will.
“In the midst of this moral hysteria, a series of books have been published suggesting that we have lost sight of what it means to make a marriage work: that an affair need not signal the end of love. At the extreme end of this is French psychologist Maryse Vaillant, whose recent book suggests that infidelity is not only unavoidable, but can be beneficial to relationships; that the "pact of fidelity is not natural but cultural". But somewhere in the middle sit figures such as London-based marital therapist Andrew G Marshall, whose book How Can I Ever Trust You Again?, published earlier this year, examines how couples can recover from adultery.”
I’ve read and re-read this paragraph desperately trying to find one end of the spectrum to the other. Ironically, I may actually be conditioned to looking for an either/or!
At the “extreme end” we have the notion that infidelity is beneficial and unavoidable.
“Somewhere in the middle” we have the notion that, when you continue to read the summary of Marshall’s work, that infidelity could be beneficial for couples
At another “extreme”, we have the notion that we have lost sight of how to make a marriage work.
At a similar “extreme”, we have the notion that an affair need not signal the end of love.
Excuse me for being pedantic, but aren’t these all one and the same, bar a few slight differences?
And the similarity that should really be borne out of this is communication.
If people are brave enough to talk then the marriage or the relationship is not lost. If people are brave enough to say that they are attracted to another, then all is not lost. If people are brave enough to admit to wanting sex with another, then that could very well happen. If people are brave enough to use this deep sexuality within their relationship; describing their libido to their partner, explaining how looking at other women turns them on, inviting them to participate in the infidelity, then the world might be a happier place.
If all we have on offer is the ‘extreme’ of unavoidable infidelity with a middle ground of unavoidable infidelity then who the hell are we all kidding here?
Monogamy, in its current form, is not working.
Monogamy with real honesty, trust, love and consideration is viable but it is going to take a huge cultural shift to recognise it as so.
The penultimate comment that I want to make is relative to what Powell calls the “mob mentality” in regard to infidelity. She explains how she was demonised by the writing of her book; how her friend who was also having an affair suggested that “it was like we were contagious”.
People are pretty crap when it comes to infidelity. They seem to recoil into this Victorian, moralistic stance that bears no resemblance to reality. It really is rather like the Tories of the Back to Basics campaign who were espousing fidelity, marriage and unattainable idolatry of the monogamous relationship right at the same time as they were riding their cocks up the nearest bizarre person who would be remotely interested in a Conservative MP.
It seems that she was right when you look at some of the comments on CIF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/13/john-terry-ashley-cole-tiger-woods-me
They are revolting!
There are some supportive comments but in the main, they are condemning this woman for having an affair, further condemning her for speaking out about it, and highly condemning her for having no regrets about the affair; all of this without really knowing the circumstances in which this affair was played out.
Assumption after assumption- that is what our society does rather too well.
People feel in the smugness (I know I’ve used that word too frequently but it really is the right one) of coupledom that they are righteous in their choice of how to live. I would go further on this to say that they are smug in their cultural norm to the point that they are damning and revolting to those of us who step out. Look at how our press demonised the President of South Africa because of his polygamous lifestyle? It was racist and sick, quite frankly.
What right has anyone got to say what it right or wrong for another human being?
I am sickened by the lack of intelligence in this world sometimes.
Nobody wants to have an affair to hurt or demean another person. Why and how could anyone make that assumption with that gross either/or mentality?
If relationships were truly intelligent in the first place, there would be no place in this world for defamatory terminology in statements such as ‘having an affair’.
People would merely be ‘enjoying another relationship’.
Yes, I know – a bit too simplistic, a bit too revolutionary, a bit too ignorant of destructive emotions.
My point is that if people were a little more concerned about a holistic approach to life, a fundamental belief in the self rather than the ultimate being coupledom then we all might be more content.
And finally, for I am sure the reader is probably exhausted by my whinges, I return to another quote from this article.
Once there was a world of arranged unions and marriage as politics and finance; now, in a world of sexual independence, relative gender equality and an increasingly frayed social fabric, we have marriage as intimacy. "It's a double bind," Kipnis says. "Adultery is more of an issue now, because we are closer."
Adultery is more of an issue now, because we are closer, because we ‘chose’ our partners, because we have sexual independence, because marriage is an intimacy!
I simply do not understand this.
Where do people get off on coming out with simplistic statements without having any real consideration for what they are saying?
By whose definition are marriages closer?
By whose definition does that marriage remain close?
By whose definition are the people that entered into that marriage the same people ten, twenty or thirty years on?
By whose definition are we sexually independent?
By whose definition is there gender equality?
Adultery is more of an issue now because we haven’t got the fallback of saying that it was an arranged marriage. Adultery is more of an issue now because we chose our partner, therefore we have to stick to that choice.
And the greatest of these is the idea that once chosen, this apparently makes us close, just in the mere fact that we once had a choice in the matter.
We do not have sexual independence. If we did monogamy in its current form would not exist. We do not have gender equality otherwise there would be an understanding of female sexuality, of ejaculation, of cum. We do not have a notion that people, relationships, even love can change. It is not set in stone, in one place. Life moves on. Without life moving, we would never learn – about others, about ourselves, about life, about feelings. Life moves.
In my previous blog I was telling a story; explaining how it is possible that I was not ‘in love’ with an ex boyfriend and that in actual fact I had simply loved having my libido belatedly turn up.
I wanted to explain that story to younger people, particularly those who felt bereft in love.
There’s plenty more fish in the sea because often the fish are there just for the fuck.
One cock is as good as the next.
I know that is not the whole story and the reason being is that life is not as simplistic as it just being about one stand alone issue, however, it is important to recognise sexuality as different from love. Young people should know that they might just mistake real intimacy for real sexual desire.
They might see one person as their soul mate without realising that they actually crave the sex.
This is an important message.
But so is this.
Monogamy has to change in order for us to function as fully actualised human beings. It is viable but only with extreme honesty. It is viable but only with a distinct variant on its current definition.
We have so bloody far to go with sexuality, with love, with life, with understanding our emotions and our feelings, hell, with even realising that there is a difference between thinking and feeling!
This article yet again demonstrates that we are trying to live in a state that places unnatural expectations upon us, as individuals and society. We place the band of gold around the finger not as a symbol of eternal love but as a chastity belt; restricting, strangling, owning.
We seek to define ourselves and our relationships against the expectation of the masses, forgetting and losing the individual within.
The ironic thing about this article is that she decries helpless angst at the masses and their norms of condemnation whilst glibly returning to those norms of expectation in going for the ‘happy ever after’ with the singular model – just as expected. It’s like the “it was all a dream” ending of “The Wizard of Oz” and millions of subsequent unimaginative stories.
Maybe we should be considering telling our children that there are other ways to live life. Maybe in that way, they would not be struggling to conform to an outdated mode of living either.
Maybe this is a message that needs to get across to young and old pretty quickly; that expectations of permanence might need to be shattered, that understanding of monogamy might need to be redefined, that it is perfectly feasible to have a monogamous relationship that also includes fucking other people.
No comments:
Post a Comment