Serious thoughts on Infidelity

I am a whore, an adulteress, a hussy, an unfaithful tramp who has no qualms about cheating on her partner.
I am, what was the phrase?…… oh yes, a fucking cunt, shouted at me whilst he was indeed fucking my cunt.

I am a thoughtless, heartless, unfeeling disgrace.
I am an inconsiderate risk taker who does not really give a damn about anyone else but herself and her earthy need for a good seeing to.

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

As I have said before in other pieces of writing on this subject, I don’t really consider myself to be any of the above, and it appears that I am not alone.

There was an excellent article in the newspaper yesterday, written by Polly Vernon on Infidelity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/mar/07/polly-vernon-infidelity-betrayal-help-relationships

The article reiterates the fact that as a species, we continue to be “attached” to the idea of monogamy whilst in reality, we find if difficult and in some cases impossible to actually adhere to this unfeasibly, unrealistic state.

I always find it interesting to read such articles for both personal and anthropological reasons.
Initially, I read such articles aiming to grab some kind of vindication for my own chosen lifestyle. There is a certain amount of comfort in knowing that I am not the only one who finds monogamy a complicated and unworkable concept. I read such articles and words bounce out of the pages that resonate absolutely.
As an amateur sociologist and a person who is interested in how society responds to sex, such articles take on another meaning too.

In essence, it is clear from these newspaper articles that there are a considerable amount of people out there who are not exactly forthcoming with the truth. There are ways of living to which we have not yet customized our minds to let alone actually living them.
There are also people living with the burden of guilt that clearly needs to be lifted so that they can live a fulfilled and purposeful life.
And sometimes I get quite angry about it all.

I’m not entirely sure how I am going to tackle this piece of writing so I think the best way is to concentrate on paraphrasing the article and making comments as I re-read through, similar to the previous posting.
I will be mixing both thoughts on what this means to me personally and what I feel it says about the sexual or the sexually unenlightened world in which we live.
Alternatively, I will just ramble on in my own sweet way and the reader will either bear with me or bog off!

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

Apart from the ubiquitous mention of John Terry, Ashley Cole and Tiger Woods, the article kicks off with a range of scenarios of infidelity collected by the author.
1. There is the man who talks to his colleague via instant messaging in a suggestive and flirty manner
2. There is the woman who has reconnected with an old friend via Facebook and is deciding whether to meet up with her old flame after receiving an array of sexy emails
3. There is the man who got in touch with his ex partner, having found her on Twitter. She responded and the implication is that the conversation is a little fruity, despite the fact that she is pregnant by another man.
4. There is the woman who thinks that kissing is not a sign of unfaithfulness if both participants are in another relationship
5. There is a woman who thinks that infidelity is fine if it is with a famous person
6. There is a man who wants to leave his long-term partner because he has finally met his soul-mate. They haven’t had sex yet.
7. There is a man who has stopped having sex with his bit on the side but is still in a relationship that is “an intensely, emotional engagement” and conducted entirely by text
8. There is a woman who is having glorious sex with a younger man. This is not the first time she has had an affair (Hell, that bloody word again!)
9. There is the man who is actively looking for a mistress. He likes living in this way

All of the aforementioned people are in committed relationships of one sort or another. Some are married, some are not. All have a story to tell. Some would argue that only three of the people have actually been unfaithful. It is only the last three that have had penetrative sex. Others would say that each and every one of these characters has fallen off the monogamy wagon because they have either thought or indulged in some sexual activity, even if it is only via fingers bouncing over a keyboard.
(As the article says, there are far more ways of being unfaithful these days. A few years ago, Twitter and Facebook didn’t even exist! Consequently, though, there are more ways of being discovered too).

The nine scenarios are interesting in themselves, for although they cover some corners, they do not cover all.
How about some more?
• There’s the man who is in a deeply emotional relationship with one woman, whilst getting his sexual excitement from another.
• There’s the woman who remains faithful in body but has an incredibly sexualized fantasy world in her mind
• There’s the man who goes out every Friday with friends from work and usually finds someone to screw
• There’s the woman who has loved a man all her life, knowing that he is unattainable and has been waiting for the moment where she finally catches his eye. Her marriage means nothing compared to the desire to be with this long time love
• There’s the man who is deeply involved with a woman whom he loves but he is resolutely believes that he can have sex with other women without it taking anything away from his primary relationship
• There’s the woman who finds herself loving two men in exact and equal amounts and just wishes she could have both
• There’s the man who thinks about women at work all the time. He imagines them undressed, fucking him on the stairs, in the lift, anywhere but he wouldn’t ever contemplate actually doing it
• There’s the woman who has realized that she is deeply attracted to other women; something entirely new for her and she is desperate to explore the wonders of another woman’s body

I could go on and on and on, and in all of these scenarios, there is nothing really close to the situation I find myself in although there could be some amalgamations of scenarios that are true at this point in time or have been in the past.

If there are so many scenarios, if there are so many people that in some way connect with some of these, then who the hell are we kidding as far as the concept of faithfulness?
What sort of messages are we giving to our future generations too?
How the hell can we move on, develop, evolve without upsetting the social order?

Ms Vernon, the author of the piece continues.
And yet we're still incredibly reverent about, and attached to, the ideal of monogamy. Both the major political parties are attempting to enshrine monogamy in pro-family policy; both made monogamy a cornerstone of their election campaigns. En masse we are critical of other people and their infidelities. We're fantastically sanctimonious regarding celebrity transgressions. We were glad that John Terry was stripped of his captaincy; delighted that Tiger Woods lost his endorsement deals as a consequence of his alleged infidelities; overjoyed that Cheryl gave Ashley the boot. We condemn the unfaithful publicly and gossip about them privately. We condemn ourselves when we transgress; we lose ourselves to guilt and suffer identity crises: how could we do this? This isn't who we are!

Why are we living this dichotomy? Why do we support the idea of monogamy so heartily while not managing to be monogamous? Why do we persist in having affairs, persist in believing in monogamy, when we're not comfortable with or especially capable of either?

What a powerful couple of paragraphs! I don’t think I can add anything to this other than explain to the reader how much I personally connect with this.

I didn’t condemn John Terry and didn’t feel the need for him to be robbed of the captaincy of his country; not for sexual discretion anyway. I’ve no idea what decisions have been made in that particular household. I find the whole idea of the astronomical amounts in endorsements paid to the likes of Tiger Woods obscene. That, to me, is far more of a concern than whether he has been slipping his cock into a dozen or twenty dozen nubile and sexy women. That is far more of an indictment on society too for that matter. As for Ashley Cole, well, he’s a bit of a wanker so I have no thoughts on this either other than alarm at the puritanical response to the situation from the red-top newspapers who cannot see the irony of their hypocrisy as they blindly fall over their pathetic attempts at morality.

I do however, have concerns about people criticizing others for having extra-marital relationships when they do not know the situations. I do concern myself with the blame that people impose upon themselves for essentially following their instinctual wit into situations that they should not feel guilty about.
We do indeed live with this dichotomy.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, I am an adulteress. I am unfaithful but there is not one person in this world who could possibly apportion blame to me without considering the factors involved. My story, as I said, is a complicated one. It doesn’t seem to comply with any of the scenarios mentioned. I doubt it is unique but sometimes, when you read these stories, if feels so.

Polly Vernon then goes onto discuss the conversation that she has with Esther Perel, a middle-aged woman who has a self-styled “voice on erotic intelligence – a sexologist”.

Erotic intelligence eh? I think that one deserves a blog all of its own.

Here is another quote that I would like to consider.
“Eroticism comes not from closeness, not from intimacy, but from precisely the opposite. From distance, from moments of jealousy, from a constant awareness that you do not own your partner no matter how long you've been together; that other people fancy them, that they always have the potential to sleep with someone else”.

I wholly disagree with the first sentence. Eroticism can come from a non-attachment but it is all the better for being very much part of an intimate relationship. Eroticism is dependent on the individual interpretation of an image or a piece of writing but if that individual interpretation is shared then the eroticism can be multiplied too.

As for the second part of this quote, I would agree. You certainly cannot know your partner completely, though once more, with an intense intimacy and a complete honesty, you can know them pretty darn well.

It blows my mind to consider that other people would not find my sexual partner attractive. He is an exceptionally attractive man. Guess what? That is why I want to fuck him all the time, well, one of the reasons anyway. To deny the fact that others may be aroused by him is denying both mine and his sexuality. People don’t metamorphosise into a monster when they become involved in a relationship. They don’t lose their sexuality. They don’t stop being attractive and they do not stop being attracted to others. When will we learn this simple yet complicated fact of life?

Perel continues.
Infidelity, she says, is one of the great recurring themes of the human experience. "And we are not monogamous! We are not! Monogamy is human, but human beings are not monogamous! By nature! Historically we have always been unfaithful – and always condemned infidelity. For a glimmer of passion, or whatever, people have been willing to risk everything. Women more so than men."

I like that phrase – human beings are not monogamous by nature. It is interesting that she sees that women are far riskier than men in the infidelity stakes. She continues to say that female infidelity is a sign of social evolution and that the power dynamism of gender is shifting.
Back to the economy, I reckon! The reason that women have been less faithless in the past could be to do with the financial reliance on a partner. Without the need and dependability of financial stability, I have a feeling there would be a completely different response to monogamy.
How far we have travelled and yet how thwarted our journey has been and continues to be.

"The men and women I work with invest more in love and happiness than ever before, yet in a cruel twist of fate it is this very model of love and sex that's behind the exponential rise of infidelity and divorce. Fascination and disillusion stare at each other." Says Perel.

I find this statement fascinating.
Are those of us who commit adultery obsessed and driven by a search for love and happiness? Does this search, if indeed it is, simply create a disillusion?

The more and more I read of this article, I realize what an incredibly fortunate soul I am, or maybe that is my delusion.

I never went in search of love or happiness or sex. I was quite content with what I had, even if the latter was insignificant or even non-existent. I did become fascinated but I don’t think I had illusions. I expected nothing and gained everything. Disillusion could, of course, be just around the corner.
Honesty and trust could, of course, ensure that disillusion is prevented.

"The standard ideas that affairs deplete intimacy, that affairs deplete the marriage, they are always harmful – I say: this is one possibility. But there are others. Affairs also are enormously enlivening. Re-eroticising. They balance the marriage. People who have affairs don't always want to leave the marriage. Sometimes, often, they are looking for a way to stay!"

"When you have an affair, this is rebellion! This is not a mild act! We have affairs to beat back the sense of deadness. We have affairs not because we are looking for another person, but because we are looking for another version of ourselves. It's not our partner we seek to leave with the affair, it's ourselves. It's what I've become that I don't like. It's how I've truncated myself. That there are parts of me that I have been so out of touch with, for decades… And of course, we live twice as long. We are different with different people."

Why the bolder print? This one hit home. I am not going to explain that here other than to say that Ms. Perel has made a very important and significant statement here.
Many ‘affairs’ happen because people are trying to find something of themselves rather than the idea that they are running away from what they have. For some, having a relationship outside their committed one enhances the primary relationship, brings back the excitement. It gives them balance. It nurtures a sense of wellbeing that can considerably improve the marriage or the long term commitment. Other times it does the opposite. Other times again, it can do both.

Whatever else, Perel says, we do not have affairs simply because we are bad by nature; or deceptive, or selfish, or cruel. "It's not just about right, and wrong, and moral. Particularly in America and in the UK, this is what we say about affairs. It's wrong. We talk about cheater. Philanderer. Liar. Narcissist. If it's not all those condemning words, then it goes to pathology. Borderline personality disorder. Childhood trauma. Addiction. We hide behind moral condemnation, or pathologising. This is not helpful, and not true. If it is true, then there are a lot of us suffering with childhood trauma and borderline personality disorders, and we have been suffering from them throughout history! We need to start to understand infidelity in terms of the complexities of life today. We need to think in terms of the failed ambitions of love."

Right up until the last sentence, I was happy with this paragraph, though on re-reading, I am beginning to understand what she is saying.
If, as Vernon and Perel are suggesting, infidelity is far more commonplace than we would like to think, then surely it cannot be evil or a pathological disorder? Yes, we need to consider infidelity in terms of the complexities of the now, but what exactly is all of this about “failed ambitions of love”?
Maybe it has something to do with an unrealistic notion of what love actually is.
Love is not about deprivation. Love is not about being untrue to oneself. Love is so complex a concept that it is almost ephemeral and yet equally eternally unintelligible.

I keep on saying this phrase over and over in my mind. “Infidelity has something to do with failed ambitions of love”. Does this mean that we are unfaithful because we have high expectations of what love actually is? Does this mean that those who are unfaithful are constantly seeking the pinnacle of a loving attachment? Does this mean that we are never capable of finding that ultimate loving relationship and that it is a completely unattainable and futile aspiration?
It sounds to me as though we are pretty harsh to ourselves and one another if this is the case.

Yet there is a counter argument. There are those who do remain faithful. Maybe they are the abnormal ones. Maybe they are the dishonest ones but for now let us assume that there is complete faithfulness in some relationships. Have they managed to achieve the ultimate ambition of love?
And there are those who have deep affection for one another, who acknowledge one another’s sexuality, have decided that infidelity cannot exist between them because infidelity in itself suggests an ownership of another human being. Maybe it is these people that have actually achieved the pinnacle of a loving relationship – one that accepts that we are individuals, one that appreciates the sexuality of the people involved, one that is honest and frank enough to admit to wanting or having sexual relationships with other people.
Isn’t that the ultimate aim fulfilled? If this was achieved, then articles such as this would not need to be written because there would be no such thing as infidelity!
But then again, I am just a dreamer!

Perel thinks we have to work toward renegotiating our ideas of monogamy. We need to see it as an exclusive emotional commitment, but not an arrangement that necessarily denotes sexual exclusivity.
Ah, yes – now we are coming onto something that is extremely interesting. Emotions, attachment, non-attachment, exclusivity.

In essence, this statement is possibly a good one. If people can assume that a primary relationship is about an exclusive emotional attachment rather than a sexual one, then infidelity is excusable. It is less significant. This makes sense…….. unless, of course, the emotional commitment is severed too.
There is an assumption that affairs take place, even by Perel, because we are trying to seek some unachievable image of love. We can fuck around happily because we have this notion of being “in love” in its giddy, unrealistic and glorious way.
Only some people have additional relationships that go way beyond the physical and the sexual. What of them, I wonder? Can you have two “exclusive emotional attachments”? Two and exclusive don’t go together by the law of physics!

"Free love didn't believe in the old model. Free love wanted to throw the old model out. Free love saw it as reactionary, as constraining, bourgeois. The new model is an attempt to reconcile our needs for commitment and our need for freedom. Our needs as part of an individualistic society, which talks about individual fulfilment and personal happiness and more is better, and our need for secure attachment and a stable family." She points out that, while we often talk critically about the idea of "having our cake and eating it" with reference to affairs, in every other aspect of our lives – in work, in our homes, in our social lives, in our experiences of the world, in our constant quest to improve ourselves and our quality of life – we are encouraged to have as much as we possibly can of everything.

I don’t really want to add anything to this paragraph other than to highlight it as significant.
Commitment and freedom have been seen for many decades, even centuries, as mutually exclusive. You cannot have one if you are seeking the other. Perel is suggesting here that you possibly can have both if one redefines the interpretation of fidelity. Furthermore, I think she is advocating the view that there is a constant drive for fulfillment and that in every other aspect of our lives, we are encouraged to have “the best”. What is wrong with wanting your cake and eating it, as long as it is not to the detriment of others?

And then the article has its penultimate statement with the one small crux, the sting in the tail.
What of jealousy? Ah yes, the green-eyed monster, the passionate envy that is so irrefutably destructive.

As a life-long sufferer, I am intrigued to hear and see what Esther Perel says on the subject.

"Aha!" Perel says, and she laughs…………….."And, of course, the view is that jealousy is a negative emotion, it's a primitive emotion…………..Jealousy goes hand in hand with passion. Is jealousy intrinsic to love? Yes! It's an indicator. If you cheat on me, am I just pissed because it's a sloppy thing to do? Or am I jealous, jealous that you had with someone else what I want to have with you, or what we used to have that was special? Because that's a very different thing! I don't know that you can have romantic love that doesn't involve jealousy. The question is: how much? And what do you do with it?"

More bold highlighting!
Jealousy is a destructive emotion. It is there, subliminal or overt. It can cripple and ruin the most intimate of relationships. By loving someone, you feel passion. The passion is so intense and so wonderful that in your irrational moments, you want it to be constant, forever, eternal. You cannot imagine that love being transferred or duplicated elsewhere. To consider your man or woman being sexually involved with another makes you feel jealous. Love and all its glory comes with the negative.
Someone once said to me that if you choose to believe in God then you also choose to believe in the existence of the devil. Whilst I am not sure that I hold much belief in anything, I think there is a point to be made here.

If you accept all that is wonderful about the brilliance of intimacy, spiritually, sexually, the works, then you may have to accept that there is always the possibility of a down side. Natural highs are fine but they are not necessarily sustainable, they have the potential to damage if there is an expectation of constancy and there is always the feasibility of coming down.
The question is: how much? And what you do with it?
Absolutely, totally. This is unequivocal.

Jealousy is an emotion that is as destructive as you allow it to be.
So my man wants to fuck other women. He loves sex. He loves women. He wants to suck another woman’s tits. He wants to feel inside her pussy in all its feminine glory. He wants to kiss her and hold her. He wants to feel his way around her slender and warm body. He wants to give her the love I know he is capable of giving. He wants me to know how he is feeling. He wants to share his passion with me.

How much can I take? How much do I want to know? How much does anyone want to know?

If you had asked me these questions a few years ago, I would have said that the only thing I wanted was for him to want me. I could not even entertain the thought that he could possibly want to fuck anyone other than me. I could not contemplate that he wanted to fuck someone more than he wanted to fuck me. I saw only an either/or.
There are times that I still see this. There are times that I am literally petrified that he will find someone who means more to him than I do but there isn’t anything that I can do about this so why worry?

What do I do with it? Well, quite frankly, I take my jealousy by the horns and allow it to challenge me. I challenge it. I embrace it. It is part of me and I have to learn how to deal with it.
I want to know everything. I want to know his thoughts and his acts. In that way, I can cope with my envy.

The simple truth is that when he fucks someone else, I find that a challenge but the depth of our relationship goes way beyond this. He cannot be unfaithful to me because I do not own him and he does not own me. Our commitment to one another is there. It is implicit and him fucking another woman, just as me fucking another woman or man does not detract from the intimacy of our relationship.
Infidelity cannot take place.

And maybe this is a lesson for us all.

The article started with quotes from people who have not actually had sex with others but have certainly thought about it. They have dabbled in cybersex. They have fantasized or rationalized potential sexual ‘infidelity’.
If people were more honest and open about their sexuality, these happenings would not be seen as an indiscretion. They would merely be part of a loving relationship If people could be honest about the positives and the negatives of extra-maritial/relationship sex, then I think the world might, just might be a happier place but it is wholly dependent on trust, belief and the ability to manage that very destructive emotion.

Furthermore, this rapidly expanding field of infidelity is yet another reason for us to redefine monogamy. "Do we have to put monogamy on a spectrum? Do we need to think: what does monogamy mean to me? Does it mean no sex with other people? Does it mean not to look at other people? Does it mean not to fantasise about other people? Does it mean not to Facebook your exes? Not to text your friends? Where is the line going to be drawn? Monogamy today is no longer going to be assumed. It's going to have to be negotiated."

Perel's ideas on infidelity are infinitely more useful than anything else currently doing the rounds. They would, at the very least, shake up lazy wisdom on what it means to cheat and be cheated upon. They would provoke debate, move things on. I think they should be given clinical currency.

Here, here and here’s to more debate on the subject.

Wake up world and be a little more realistic about the profoundly stupid expectations we put upon one another. Wake up and realize that you can have the most perfect, intimate relationship that enables your partner to express themselves sexually, even emotionally, but that is probably the more challenging of the two.