"Rekindled romances were surprisingly successful the second time around (provided that the lost loves are single, divorced, or widowed---not currently married)."
(Nancy Kalish, Ph.D., http://www.lostlovers.com/)
My last blog article warned of the dangers of tracking down a former lover if either or both of you are currently married. And the dangers are real. But if you're both unmarried, or not in a committed relationship, a long-ago lover can be just the person you've been hoping to find. And if you're one of the many mid-life people struggling with the realities of post-divorce dating, an old lover is more likely to be in your comfort zone than someone completely new would be.
Nancy Kalish, a California State University psychology professor who for many years has studied "lost love reunions", says that rekindled relationships are most successful when the original relationship was broken off due to "situational reasons"---his family moved away while you were both still in high school, or you went off to colleges a thousand miles apart, or you were both simply "too young".
Dr. Kalish notes that when couples grew up together, knew each other's family and friends, and perhaps went to the same schools and church, they're likely to share core values, values that may seem even more important once we're older and wiser. An early love can unconsciously become the "standard" for all future loves, partly because such a love is often based as much on friendship and familiarity as on romance or sexual passion.
Of course, when there's a reward, there's usually a risk. In the case of lost lovers, it's the risk of breaking up twice. And not only are you risking a second break-up, you're risking the loss of a dream, the loss of the hope that may have sustained you during the tough times you've gone through in your marriage or in your divorce.
Because of these risks, Dr. Kalish advises that before you initiate any contact with a lost love, you should ask yourself if you could handle anything bad that might occur: a rejection, a second breakup, a sad realization that feelings have changed and the love is gone forever. If you feel you couldn't accept such disappointments or rejections, it's best not to go there at all. Let it live in your memory, but focus on finding someone new who at least comes close to that ideal.
Of course, when you learn someone's whereabouts through a computer search, you're not always going to learn his marital status. You may have to just take a chance and contact him, and hope for the best. If he turns out to be married, you're better off letting the matter drop entirely, even if he expresses a desire to see you (especially if he expresses a desire to see you). If his marriage is unhappy, you're not the person to be his marriage counselor. And I don't think you want to be his part-time wife. If and when he's free again, he can contact you.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Playing Detective can be Playing with Fire
"Married people who contact lost loves often say they just 'want closure'. But there is no closure: the old feelings always come back".
(Nancy Kalish, Ph.D., http://www.lostlovers.com/)
For better or worse, we live in an age in which it's relatively easy to track someone down. Anyone with imagination, patience, and Internet access can learn more about someone in ten minutes than the famous literary detectives of the 1940's could learn in two weeks. Most of us have probably "googled" old friends, lost relatives, and people we used to work with in the distant past. It can certainly be interesting to see what people are doing now, or where they're living, and sometimes it's tempting to go a step further and contact them. And of course, some people invite others to contact them, through their membership in classmates.com or similar sites.
All of this is usually harmless amusement, provided, of course, that one doesn't become a pest or a cyber-stalker. But one category of sleuthing and reuniting that should be avoided at all costs is tracking down old lovers, if either or both of you are currently married.
I've known a fair number of married people who have contacted or been contacted by ex-lovers, and they all tell a similar story. The first contact is typically an innocent-sounding e-mail that explains that he or she stumbled over the other person's name while doing a totally-unrelated search, which of course triggered a curiosity about what the person might be doing these days, etc. If the response is at all encouraging, the next e-mail will usually be a bit warmer in tone, alluding to happy memories and suggesting that it might be fun to meet for lunch sometime soon. ("Well, why not? We're just friends now").
The lunch always seems to be at a nice restaurant, on a day when both parties can afford to linger a while. ("We have a lot to catch up on"). After the usual exchange of information and life-events, the conversation invariably turns to their past relationship, or at least the parts that they prefer to remember. The longer the conversation continues, the more each person is likely to start feeling those old feelings, the kind of feelings that seem to be lacking in his or her marriage these days.
This is dangerous territory. What is happening at that lunch, and at any subsequent lunches or meetings, is a battle between illusion and reality. And illusion will always win that battle. I say "illusion" because, with a lost lover, we're not looking at him or her as a real person (the way we look at our spouse) but as an embodiment of a happier past. We conveniently forget that there were good reasons why the relationship with that person ended, or we gloss over those reasons by believing that we must have made a mistake in breaking up; that if we had just given it a little more time we would have gotten it right.
The reality of your current marriage may or may not be a happy one. There may be problems that need fixing. But they're not going to be fixed by escaping into the past---a past that was idyllic only in your imagination---or by forcing your real-life spouse to compete with an illusion. Even if the contacts with your ex-lover never lead to an affair, they're likely to engender an increasing dissatisfaction with your marriage, and even a resentment of your spouse for depriving you of the life you think you were meant to live.
I'm not saying you should accept your present reality without complaint. I'm saying that the way to improve that reality is by recognizing problems and doing something about them, not by embracing a fantasy.
(Nancy Kalish, Ph.D., http://www.lostlovers.com/)
For better or worse, we live in an age in which it's relatively easy to track someone down. Anyone with imagination, patience, and Internet access can learn more about someone in ten minutes than the famous literary detectives of the 1940's could learn in two weeks. Most of us have probably "googled" old friends, lost relatives, and people we used to work with in the distant past. It can certainly be interesting to see what people are doing now, or where they're living, and sometimes it's tempting to go a step further and contact them. And of course, some people invite others to contact them, through their membership in classmates.com or similar sites.
All of this is usually harmless amusement, provided, of course, that one doesn't become a pest or a cyber-stalker. But one category of sleuthing and reuniting that should be avoided at all costs is tracking down old lovers, if either or both of you are currently married.
I've known a fair number of married people who have contacted or been contacted by ex-lovers, and they all tell a similar story. The first contact is typically an innocent-sounding e-mail that explains that he or she stumbled over the other person's name while doing a totally-unrelated search, which of course triggered a curiosity about what the person might be doing these days, etc. If the response is at all encouraging, the next e-mail will usually be a bit warmer in tone, alluding to happy memories and suggesting that it might be fun to meet for lunch sometime soon. ("Well, why not? We're just friends now").
The lunch always seems to be at a nice restaurant, on a day when both parties can afford to linger a while. ("We have a lot to catch up on"). After the usual exchange of information and life-events, the conversation invariably turns to their past relationship, or at least the parts that they prefer to remember. The longer the conversation continues, the more each person is likely to start feeling those old feelings, the kind of feelings that seem to be lacking in his or her marriage these days.
This is dangerous territory. What is happening at that lunch, and at any subsequent lunches or meetings, is a battle between illusion and reality. And illusion will always win that battle. I say "illusion" because, with a lost lover, we're not looking at him or her as a real person (the way we look at our spouse) but as an embodiment of a happier past. We conveniently forget that there were good reasons why the relationship with that person ended, or we gloss over those reasons by believing that we must have made a mistake in breaking up; that if we had just given it a little more time we would have gotten it right.
The reality of your current marriage may or may not be a happy one. There may be problems that need fixing. But they're not going to be fixed by escaping into the past---a past that was idyllic only in your imagination---or by forcing your real-life spouse to compete with an illusion. Even if the contacts with your ex-lover never lead to an affair, they're likely to engender an increasing dissatisfaction with your marriage, and even a resentment of your spouse for depriving you of the life you think you were meant to live.
I'm not saying you should accept your present reality without complaint. I'm saying that the way to improve that reality is by recognizing problems and doing something about them, not by embracing a fantasy.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Your Bedroom or Mine?
"By 2015, a majority of custom-built homes will have his-and-hers master bedroom suites".
(From a National Association of Home Builders market trends report)
It used to be that having separate bedrooms meant that a couple had stopped having sex. Not anymore. In rapidly increasing numbers, married homeowners---or at least those affluent enough to afford it---are opting for separate bedrooms. In some cases, houses are being designed that way; in others, couples are reconfiguring the existing bedroom set-up, turning a guest bedroom, for example, into a bedroom for one of the spouses. And they're usually not doing it to avoid sex. In fact, they may be improving their sex lives.
Married couples are finally recognizing that sleeping together (in the literal sense) is not synonymous with sleeping soundly together. A lot of people snore. Others have restless leg syndrome, or get up to go to the bathroom a couple of times during the night, or can only fall asleep while reading or watching TV.
Sleep is as vital to one's physical health as good nutrition and regular exercise. And chronic lack of sleep can also affect one's marital health. If one spouse regularly causes the other to suffer sleepless nights---even if the reasons are totally beyond his or her control---resentment will eventually set in. And resentment has a way of spilling over into other areas of a relationship.
If you're one of those unfortunate people who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years, why not admit the obvious: it's never going to change. Then do something about it, and don't worry about what your kids or your in-laws or even your spouse will think (you're the one who's suffering, not them).
It might make it easier to implement a change in sleeping arrangements if you can look at separate bedrooms not as a necessary evil but rather as something sexy. (Yes, I said sexy). Think back to when you were single. There were probably nights when someone stayed over at your place, nights when you stayed over at their place, nights when you made love somewhere---planned or not---but then went home by yourself, nights when you were happy simply to stay home alone...there were all kinds of possibilities. And it was the sense of possibility that added to the sexiness of it all. You hadn't settled into a predictable pattern. Sex was something special; you anticipated it with pleasure, you savored it afterward, and you were never certain when, or where, it would happen.
If you can get back to that mindset, if you can pretend that the two of you are still dating, I think you'll discover that separate bedrooms lend themselves to erotic possibilities. For example, after dinner some night, you might suggest that your spouse drop by your room in an hour or so. (Of course, he'll have to knock, unless you decide to leave the door a tiny bit ajar). You will have given yourself time to take a bath, put on something nice, set up the room for a romantic rendezvous---all in complete privacy. And if you're in the mood for an overnight lover, you just might let him stay afterward. (But if he starts snoring, he can be back in his own room in thirty seconds).
As I say in my book, if you have a problem that you can't seem to solve, think imaginatively and dare to be unconventional. Having an unconventional marriage is a lot better than having a frustrating one. It all comes down to doing what works best for you. But in the case of separate bedrooms, maybe the unconventional will soon become the norm.
(From a National Association of Home Builders market trends report)
It used to be that having separate bedrooms meant that a couple had stopped having sex. Not anymore. In rapidly increasing numbers, married homeowners---or at least those affluent enough to afford it---are opting for separate bedrooms. In some cases, houses are being designed that way; in others, couples are reconfiguring the existing bedroom set-up, turning a guest bedroom, for example, into a bedroom for one of the spouses. And they're usually not doing it to avoid sex. In fact, they may be improving their sex lives.
Married couples are finally recognizing that sleeping together (in the literal sense) is not synonymous with sleeping soundly together. A lot of people snore. Others have restless leg syndrome, or get up to go to the bathroom a couple of times during the night, or can only fall asleep while reading or watching TV.
Sleep is as vital to one's physical health as good nutrition and regular exercise. And chronic lack of sleep can also affect one's marital health. If one spouse regularly causes the other to suffer sleepless nights---even if the reasons are totally beyond his or her control---resentment will eventually set in. And resentment has a way of spilling over into other areas of a relationship.
If you're one of those unfortunate people who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years, why not admit the obvious: it's never going to change. Then do something about it, and don't worry about what your kids or your in-laws or even your spouse will think (you're the one who's suffering, not them).
It might make it easier to implement a change in sleeping arrangements if you can look at separate bedrooms not as a necessary evil but rather as something sexy. (Yes, I said sexy). Think back to when you were single. There were probably nights when someone stayed over at your place, nights when you stayed over at their place, nights when you made love somewhere---planned or not---but then went home by yourself, nights when you were happy simply to stay home alone...there were all kinds of possibilities. And it was the sense of possibility that added to the sexiness of it all. You hadn't settled into a predictable pattern. Sex was something special; you anticipated it with pleasure, you savored it afterward, and you were never certain when, or where, it would happen.
If you can get back to that mindset, if you can pretend that the two of you are still dating, I think you'll discover that separate bedrooms lend themselves to erotic possibilities. For example, after dinner some night, you might suggest that your spouse drop by your room in an hour or so. (Of course, he'll have to knock, unless you decide to leave the door a tiny bit ajar). You will have given yourself time to take a bath, put on something nice, set up the room for a romantic rendezvous---all in complete privacy. And if you're in the mood for an overnight lover, you just might let him stay afterward. (But if he starts snoring, he can be back in his own room in thirty seconds).
As I say in my book, if you have a problem that you can't seem to solve, think imaginatively and dare to be unconventional. Having an unconventional marriage is a lot better than having a frustrating one. It all comes down to doing what works best for you. But in the case of separate bedrooms, maybe the unconventional will soon become the norm.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Playing the Psychiatrist Role
"Marriage is a 50-50 proposition".
(Author unknown)
We've all heard the saying that marriage is a 50-50 proposition, but what, exactly, does that mean? And is it true?
I think what is usually meant is that marriage involves compromise. You shouldn't expect to get your way all the time. You should be prepared to meet your spouse halfway to resolve the inevitable differences that will arise.
All of that sounds reasonable, but in the real world compromises are often hard to achieve, or even to define. If she wants to have another child, and he thinks that the one they have is enough, how can they resolve the problem by compromise?
Even many "routine" disagreements or incompatibilities are difficult to compromise. If she wants to have sex tonight and he just wants to fall asleep, is there a "halfway" solution? Or if he's dying to buy a Porsche, and she feels they're already one step away from bankruptcy, is there a 50-50 alternative that will please both of them? I doubt it. No matter what happens, one or the other of them is going to "win" on the issue. (And, unfortunately, when people get hung up on winning, both of them are likely to lose in the long run).
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be trying to reach out to our spouses to achieve mutually-satisfying results. I'm saying that we should recognize that true compromise is often an illusion, and that the "50-50 proposition" theory should refer to the overall contributions of both spouses over the course of time, rather than to the outcome of a particular issue.
At any given moment, though, one spouse or the other may need to be putting in considerably more than 50% of the effort to keep the relationship going. If your wife's mother was recently diagnosed with cancer, you're going to have to cut her some slack---maybe a lot of slack---for quite some time. If your husband was suddenly terminated from his job, you're going to have to help him deal with his anger and possibly his depression, while simultaneously dealing with the financial realities of the situation and with your own anxieties.
Part of being a good husband or good wife involves playing the role of psychiatrist. You need to sympathize with what your spouse is going through, provide encouragement, offer suggestions, serve as a sounding board, and suppress your own need to seek sympathy or vent your anger. It's not easy, and the reward isn't always immediate. But if you know in your heart that when the time comes your spouse will return the favor, it's worth the effort: eventually, things will balance out.
Of course, things will never balance out unless both spouses willingly take turns being the psychiatrist. It's all too easy for one person to obsess endlessly over his own issues, and to take his spouse's efforts for granted. If a perpetually-needy person has a self-sacrificing spouse, their relationship might go on for years in a one-sided way, but it can rarely go on like that forever. Even the most self-sacrificing person will eventually grow resentful and hit an emotional wall. When that happens, it may be too late to restore a 50-50 balance, or to avoid a divorce that could have been prevented.
(Author unknown)
We've all heard the saying that marriage is a 50-50 proposition, but what, exactly, does that mean? And is it true?
I think what is usually meant is that marriage involves compromise. You shouldn't expect to get your way all the time. You should be prepared to meet your spouse halfway to resolve the inevitable differences that will arise.
All of that sounds reasonable, but in the real world compromises are often hard to achieve, or even to define. If she wants to have another child, and he thinks that the one they have is enough, how can they resolve the problem by compromise?
Even many "routine" disagreements or incompatibilities are difficult to compromise. If she wants to have sex tonight and he just wants to fall asleep, is there a "halfway" solution? Or if he's dying to buy a Porsche, and she feels they're already one step away from bankruptcy, is there a 50-50 alternative that will please both of them? I doubt it. No matter what happens, one or the other of them is going to "win" on the issue. (And, unfortunately, when people get hung up on winning, both of them are likely to lose in the long run).
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be trying to reach out to our spouses to achieve mutually-satisfying results. I'm saying that we should recognize that true compromise is often an illusion, and that the "50-50 proposition" theory should refer to the overall contributions of both spouses over the course of time, rather than to the outcome of a particular issue.
At any given moment, though, one spouse or the other may need to be putting in considerably more than 50% of the effort to keep the relationship going. If your wife's mother was recently diagnosed with cancer, you're going to have to cut her some slack---maybe a lot of slack---for quite some time. If your husband was suddenly terminated from his job, you're going to have to help him deal with his anger and possibly his depression, while simultaneously dealing with the financial realities of the situation and with your own anxieties.
Part of being a good husband or good wife involves playing the role of psychiatrist. You need to sympathize with what your spouse is going through, provide encouragement, offer suggestions, serve as a sounding board, and suppress your own need to seek sympathy or vent your anger. It's not easy, and the reward isn't always immediate. But if you know in your heart that when the time comes your spouse will return the favor, it's worth the effort: eventually, things will balance out.
Of course, things will never balance out unless both spouses willingly take turns being the psychiatrist. It's all too easy for one person to obsess endlessly over his own issues, and to take his spouse's efforts for granted. If a perpetually-needy person has a self-sacrificing spouse, their relationship might go on for years in a one-sided way, but it can rarely go on like that forever. Even the most self-sacrificing person will eventually grow resentful and hit an emotional wall. When that happens, it may be too late to restore a 50-50 balance, or to avoid a divorce that could have been prevented.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Hard Times and Bad Divorces
"The only people who are selling now are people who have to sell, such as people going through a divorce. And I sure don't envy them".
(Neil Brooks, Phoenix real estate broker, as quoted in the Arizona Republic)
When I was a mediator for the divorce court in Phoenix, real estate prices seemed to be rising by the minute. The only divorcing couples who didn't have substantial equity in their homes were the ones who had gone crazy on home-equity loans or lines of credit, and had blown the borrowed money on luxury vehicles, expensive vacations, and the like. Just about every other couple could either sell the marital home and split the proceeds, or figure out a way for one spouse to buy out the other's equity and remain in the home. They at least had something to start a new life with.
Although divorce mediation is never an easy job, it's always more pleasant when there are profits to be divided rather than debts to be apportioned. When you combine the inherent psychological stress of divorce with the very real prospect of financial disaster, you have a situation that brings out the worst in people. Each spouse is convinced that it was the other one who got them into the mess they're in. "You're the one who wanted that damn house, not me". "What do you mean? You're the one who was always bitching about the bathrooms being too small in the old house".
Assigning blame is all-too-human, but it's a colossal waste of energy. And focusing on the past won't clean up the mess. If you're convinced that you want a divorce and you want it now, you're probably going to take a major financial hit. There may be little or no equity in the house; there may even be negative equity. Your credit rating may take a nosedive, which will not only make purchasing another home difficult, but can bump up the interest rate on your existing credit cards, even if you've never missed a payment. On top of all that, who knows if your job will still be there in six months---or six weeks?
Unless your marriage is truly intolerable, or unless your spouse is a compulsive spender or degenerate gambler, maybe you should hold off on divorce. Divorce is always expensive, even in good economic times. When the same income that was barely enough to keep one household going now has to pay for two of them, something has to give. When you add to the mix the lawyer bills, the court costs, the real estate broker fees, and the moving costs, you're flirting with bankruptcy or even---in an extreme case---homelessness.
Maybe you should ride out the bad times together. You'll not only avoid having to sell in a free-falling market, you'll have a common purpose. Instead of it being the two of you against each other, it will now be the two of you against the world. You can try, maybe for the first time, to get a grip on your spending. You can get in the habit of celebrating little victories, such as keeping that old car running another year, or getting another season or two out of your clothes, or finally paying off that high-interest credit card. You can learn not to keep harping on past spending decisions, no matter how unwise they may seem today.
Of course, breaking old habits is never easy. The old way of doing things---the way that led to the current crisis---will have to be changed. Priorities will have to be set. Spending limits will have to be agreed on (or, if necessary, imposed). It will be tough for a while, and it will take unending co-operation and good will. But co-operation and good will may be exactly what your marriage has lacked.
Give it a try. If it works, you may never have to think about divorce again. But even if, down the road, you do decide to go your separate ways, you'll have a much better chance of starting your new lives on a better financial footing, and of knowing how to avoid similar problems in the future.
(Neil Brooks, Phoenix real estate broker, as quoted in the Arizona Republic)
When I was a mediator for the divorce court in Phoenix, real estate prices seemed to be rising by the minute. The only divorcing couples who didn't have substantial equity in their homes were the ones who had gone crazy on home-equity loans or lines of credit, and had blown the borrowed money on luxury vehicles, expensive vacations, and the like. Just about every other couple could either sell the marital home and split the proceeds, or figure out a way for one spouse to buy out the other's equity and remain in the home. They at least had something to start a new life with.
Although divorce mediation is never an easy job, it's always more pleasant when there are profits to be divided rather than debts to be apportioned. When you combine the inherent psychological stress of divorce with the very real prospect of financial disaster, you have a situation that brings out the worst in people. Each spouse is convinced that it was the other one who got them into the mess they're in. "You're the one who wanted that damn house, not me". "What do you mean? You're the one who was always bitching about the bathrooms being too small in the old house".
Assigning blame is all-too-human, but it's a colossal waste of energy. And focusing on the past won't clean up the mess. If you're convinced that you want a divorce and you want it now, you're probably going to take a major financial hit. There may be little or no equity in the house; there may even be negative equity. Your credit rating may take a nosedive, which will not only make purchasing another home difficult, but can bump up the interest rate on your existing credit cards, even if you've never missed a payment. On top of all that, who knows if your job will still be there in six months---or six weeks?
Unless your marriage is truly intolerable, or unless your spouse is a compulsive spender or degenerate gambler, maybe you should hold off on divorce. Divorce is always expensive, even in good economic times. When the same income that was barely enough to keep one household going now has to pay for two of them, something has to give. When you add to the mix the lawyer bills, the court costs, the real estate broker fees, and the moving costs, you're flirting with bankruptcy or even---in an extreme case---homelessness.
Maybe you should ride out the bad times together. You'll not only avoid having to sell in a free-falling market, you'll have a common purpose. Instead of it being the two of you against each other, it will now be the two of you against the world. You can try, maybe for the first time, to get a grip on your spending. You can get in the habit of celebrating little victories, such as keeping that old car running another year, or getting another season or two out of your clothes, or finally paying off that high-interest credit card. You can learn not to keep harping on past spending decisions, no matter how unwise they may seem today.
Of course, breaking old habits is never easy. The old way of doing things---the way that led to the current crisis---will have to be changed. Priorities will have to be set. Spending limits will have to be agreed on (or, if necessary, imposed). It will be tough for a while, and it will take unending co-operation and good will. But co-operation and good will may be exactly what your marriage has lacked.
Give it a try. If it works, you may never have to think about divorce again. But even if, down the road, you do decide to go your separate ways, you'll have a much better chance of starting your new lives on a better financial footing, and of knowing how to avoid similar problems in the future.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Spitzer Psychobabble at its Worst
"Dr. Laura: It's Silda's Fault..."
(Headline in the Daily Intelligencer)
"My brother was simply following a biological imperative. If men weren't attracted to sexy women, the human species would have disappeared a long time ago".
(Dr. Daniel Spitzer, brother of Eliot Spitzer)
Readers of my book know that I have a keen appreciation for human frailty, especially when it comes to sexual temptation. I don't endorse extramarital sex, but I can understand what can drive a person to it. And as a self-proclaimed moral relativist, I'm not usually one to criticize those who have succumbed to temptation.
But I'll make an exception in the Eliot Spitzer case.
Even before the scandal broke out, Spitzler was known in legal and political circles as arrogant, ruthless, and egomaniacal, given to self-congratulatory comments, mean-spirited attacks, and the worst kind of opportunism. It was said that he would throw his own grandmother under the bus if it furthered his agenda. As far as I know, he didn't do that to his grandmother---literally, at least---but he has certainly sacrificed his wife and allowed her to twist in the wind as the alleged "cause" of his behavior.
Let's start with Spitzer's brother's quote (which Spitzler has not, to date, repudiated). According to the brother (who has been described as a "reknowned neurosurgeon"), there is no personal responsibility when it comes to men and sex. If you have the opportunity, you'll go for it. In fact, by going for it you're playing a vital role in the propagation of the species. Well, Eliot Spitzer, by fathering three daughters, has already done his part to ensure that the human race survives beyond this generation. And is the good doctor implying that Eliot's wife, Silda, is inadequate in bed, or at least not adequate enough to compete with "sexy" women?
And then there's Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The day after the Spitzer story broke, she was on the Today show pontificating about how a wife like Silda Spitzer has only herself to blame when she "fails to make him feel like a man, like a success, like her hero". When that happens, "he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs".
What absolute garbage. First of all, Eliot Spitzer was not exactly the poster boy for the Low Self-Esteem Society. "Feel like a man, like a success, like a hero"? Hey, just ask him! He's not only a man, but an Alpha Male. He's Superman. He's indestructible. (At least until this week).
Secondly, when Schlessinger says that Spitzer was "susceptible to the charm of some other woman", she seems to be saying that the other woman was pursuing him. Earth to Dr. Laura: this was not an affair. The girl was a prostitute. The only thing she was pursuing was money. He initiated the whole thing.
And finally, who is Dr. Laura to tell us that Silda Spitzer was failing to please her husband? She doesn't even know the woman. The arrogance of Eliot Spitzer is exceeded only by that of his apologists and enablers.
Prostitution is often called a victimless crime, but of course that's not always true. Eliot Spitzer is certainly a victim. He may be a victim of his own sense of entitlement, but he's a victim nonetheless. For the rest of his life, he'll be a public joke. But the truly innocent victim here is Silda Spitzer, who a week ago was largely unknown to the public, and is now accused on national TV of being a bad wife, an unsexy woman, and the "real" cause of her husband's downfall.
If there's any lesson for married men to take from all this, it is that decisions have consequences, sometimes unanticipated and far-reaching consequences. Make sure the decisions you make are the right ones.
(Headline in the Daily Intelligencer)
"My brother was simply following a biological imperative. If men weren't attracted to sexy women, the human species would have disappeared a long time ago".
(Dr. Daniel Spitzer, brother of Eliot Spitzer)
Readers of my book know that I have a keen appreciation for human frailty, especially when it comes to sexual temptation. I don't endorse extramarital sex, but I can understand what can drive a person to it. And as a self-proclaimed moral relativist, I'm not usually one to criticize those who have succumbed to temptation.
But I'll make an exception in the Eliot Spitzer case.
Even before the scandal broke out, Spitzler was known in legal and political circles as arrogant, ruthless, and egomaniacal, given to self-congratulatory comments, mean-spirited attacks, and the worst kind of opportunism. It was said that he would throw his own grandmother under the bus if it furthered his agenda. As far as I know, he didn't do that to his grandmother---literally, at least---but he has certainly sacrificed his wife and allowed her to twist in the wind as the alleged "cause" of his behavior.
Let's start with Spitzer's brother's quote (which Spitzler has not, to date, repudiated). According to the brother (who has been described as a "reknowned neurosurgeon"), there is no personal responsibility when it comes to men and sex. If you have the opportunity, you'll go for it. In fact, by going for it you're playing a vital role in the propagation of the species. Well, Eliot Spitzer, by fathering three daughters, has already done his part to ensure that the human race survives beyond this generation. And is the good doctor implying that Eliot's wife, Silda, is inadequate in bed, or at least not adequate enough to compete with "sexy" women?
And then there's Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The day after the Spitzer story broke, she was on the Today show pontificating about how a wife like Silda Spitzer has only herself to blame when she "fails to make him feel like a man, like a success, like her hero". When that happens, "he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs".
What absolute garbage. First of all, Eliot Spitzer was not exactly the poster boy for the Low Self-Esteem Society. "Feel like a man, like a success, like a hero"? Hey, just ask him! He's not only a man, but an Alpha Male. He's Superman. He's indestructible. (At least until this week).
Secondly, when Schlessinger says that Spitzer was "susceptible to the charm of some other woman", she seems to be saying that the other woman was pursuing him. Earth to Dr. Laura: this was not an affair. The girl was a prostitute. The only thing she was pursuing was money. He initiated the whole thing.
And finally, who is Dr. Laura to tell us that Silda Spitzer was failing to please her husband? She doesn't even know the woman. The arrogance of Eliot Spitzer is exceeded only by that of his apologists and enablers.
Prostitution is often called a victimless crime, but of course that's not always true. Eliot Spitzer is certainly a victim. He may be a victim of his own sense of entitlement, but he's a victim nonetheless. For the rest of his life, he'll be a public joke. But the truly innocent victim here is Silda Spitzer, who a week ago was largely unknown to the public, and is now accused on national TV of being a bad wife, an unsexy woman, and the "real" cause of her husband's downfall.
If there's any lesson for married men to take from all this, it is that decisions have consequences, sometimes unanticipated and far-reaching consequences. Make sure the decisions you make are the right ones.
Friday, March 7, 2008
The One Relationship We Forget to Nourish
"When people take time off, they're really spending time with themselves. That's a relationship worth having, too".
(Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, in response to a question about starting a new relationship right after the previous one had ended).
Carolyn Hax, whose "Tell Me About It" appears in hundreds of newspapers, is the only advice columnist I feel is worth reading. She's an exceptionally clear thinker and she's not afraid to tell her questioners what they don't want to hear.
In the column I quoted from, the questioner's ex-boyfriend had immediately taken up with someone new (my guess is that he had the new one lined up all along), and she wanted to know why she shouldn't do the same thing. Why should she mourn the loss of someone who proved to be a jerk? Why should she deny herself companionship and sex? Carolyn's response was that if companionship and sex are all that you want, then go for it. But if you want to try to figure out what went wrong, and prepare for a new relationship that involves more than just companionship and sex---with someone who's not a jerk---you're going to need time.
I agree. When people rush into new relationships, particularly after the breakup of a marriage or other long-term involvement, it's usually for the wrong reason. Wanting sex is all well and good, but often a person's perceived need for sex is really a need for validation that he or she is still desirable, or a means of revenge against the "ex". If you are still in a state of shock, anger, or resentment, sex with someone new is not going to cure the problem. It may even make it worse, especially if you get overly invested in the new person and he or she just sees you as a friend with benefits.
I'm not saying that you have to spend every waking moment for months and months obsessing about what went wrong. Yes, you want to examine what the two of you did or didn't do, but you also want to figure out who you really are and what you want in a relationship. You can do this best by---as Carolyn Hax said---forming a relationship with yourself. Learn to be comfortable spending quality time alone. Read some good books, listen to music, go out for long walks. Spend time with friends, but don't hesitate to go somewhere by yourself if you're in the mood.
If you're a man, learn to do some of the things that you always depended on your wife or girlfriend for. I'm convinced that the reason many recently-divorced men are desperate for a new woman is not that they need sex so urgently, but rather that they simply have no clue how to function on their own. If men learned the rudiments of cooking, cleaning, food-shopping, checkbook-balancing, and other basic life skills, they would more easily avoid the trading-one-woman-for-another trap.
For both men and women, the goal should be to emerge stronger, wiser, less bitter, and with a renewed sense of optimism and purpose. Depending on the length of the prior relationship and the intensity of feelings engendered by the breakup, this can take anywhere from a few months to a couple of years. (If it takes much more than that, there may be more avoidance than healing going on). But the time it takes to develop that relationship with yourself is well worth it. After all, it's the only relationship that you can guarantee will last a lifetime.
(Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, in response to a question about starting a new relationship right after the previous one had ended).
Carolyn Hax, whose "Tell Me About It" appears in hundreds of newspapers, is the only advice columnist I feel is worth reading. She's an exceptionally clear thinker and she's not afraid to tell her questioners what they don't want to hear.
In the column I quoted from, the questioner's ex-boyfriend had immediately taken up with someone new (my guess is that he had the new one lined up all along), and she wanted to know why she shouldn't do the same thing. Why should she mourn the loss of someone who proved to be a jerk? Why should she deny herself companionship and sex? Carolyn's response was that if companionship and sex are all that you want, then go for it. But if you want to try to figure out what went wrong, and prepare for a new relationship that involves more than just companionship and sex---with someone who's not a jerk---you're going to need time.
I agree. When people rush into new relationships, particularly after the breakup of a marriage or other long-term involvement, it's usually for the wrong reason. Wanting sex is all well and good, but often a person's perceived need for sex is really a need for validation that he or she is still desirable, or a means of revenge against the "ex". If you are still in a state of shock, anger, or resentment, sex with someone new is not going to cure the problem. It may even make it worse, especially if you get overly invested in the new person and he or she just sees you as a friend with benefits.
I'm not saying that you have to spend every waking moment for months and months obsessing about what went wrong. Yes, you want to examine what the two of you did or didn't do, but you also want to figure out who you really are and what you want in a relationship. You can do this best by---as Carolyn Hax said---forming a relationship with yourself. Learn to be comfortable spending quality time alone. Read some good books, listen to music, go out for long walks. Spend time with friends, but don't hesitate to go somewhere by yourself if you're in the mood.
If you're a man, learn to do some of the things that you always depended on your wife or girlfriend for. I'm convinced that the reason many recently-divorced men are desperate for a new woman is not that they need sex so urgently, but rather that they simply have no clue how to function on their own. If men learned the rudiments of cooking, cleaning, food-shopping, checkbook-balancing, and other basic life skills, they would more easily avoid the trading-one-woman-for-another trap.
For both men and women, the goal should be to emerge stronger, wiser, less bitter, and with a renewed sense of optimism and purpose. Depending on the length of the prior relationship and the intensity of feelings engendered by the breakup, this can take anywhere from a few months to a couple of years. (If it takes much more than that, there may be more avoidance than healing going on). But the time it takes to develop that relationship with yourself is well worth it. After all, it's the only relationship that you can guarantee will last a lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
