The Pause That Refreshes

"For solitude sometimes is best society,
And short retirement urges sweet return."
(John Milton, from Paradise Lost)



A few weeks ago, I drove up to Silver City, New Mexico---an old, mile-high mining town that's been transformed into a place with lots of art galleries and funky businesses---and spent a couple of enjoyable nights there. I went alone, my wife being happy to stay home and catch up on her reading. A few weeks before that, she went off by herself to Detroit to visit her niece and her newborn baby, and that was fine with me. I used the time to go hiking and to check out a couple of new restaurants.

My wife and I go to plenty of places together---we're actually great travel companions---but there are times when we recognize that we either need time alone, or one of us wants to go somewhere that the other one has no real interest in. In the case of Silver City, the town reminds me in many ways of Brattleboro, Vermont, where I spent some happy years in the 1970's. My wife, though, doesn't relate to either Brattleboro or Silver City, and there's no particular reason she should. Conversely, I don't relate to Detroit. Her niece is a lovely young woman, but she lives in quite possibly the ugliest, most dispiriting city in America. Just thinking about Detroit puts me in a bad mood.

So, rather than tag along half-heartedly somewhere, or feeling guilty that the other person isn't having fun, we sometimes go our separate ways, and we're both happier for it.

The reason I'm saying all this is that I keep running into married people who seem imprisoned by the notion of togetherness. They go everywhere and do everything together, even when it's quite obvious that at least one of them would rather not be there. (Next time you're in a mall, look at the faces of the married men). Or they "compromise" by coming up with a result that neither of them really wants. (He wants to go camping, she wants to go to the beach, so they wind up in some big-city hotel). This seems crazy to me.

Not only is there nothing wrong with spouses having different interests, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging those differences and acting on them. Obviously, if a couple has no common interests and never goes anywhere together, it wouldn't be much of a marriage. But there's no reason why a weekend apart now and then, or even a longer trip, has to be seen as a threat. In fact, being away a for a while will often make you realize how much you miss your spouse, and how eager you are to tell him or her about the details of your trip.

Mutual trust, of course, is a crucial element in spending time apart. If a wife is worried that her husband will be trying to pick up women on his ski trip, or a husband thinks that his wife's visit to her college roommate is a cover-up for seeing an old boyfriend, it won't work. But if someone is that suspicious---with or without cause---how much trust is there, anyway? And if a person is determined to have extramarital sex, he or she doesn't need to fly a thousand miles to get it. In fact, if a person senses that his spouse won't let him out of her sight for fear of his taking up with someone else, he's probably more likely to misbehave. If he's going to be blamed anyway, the thinking goes, he may as well get something out of it.

In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. For many couples, spending time apart is not especially unconventional, but for other couples it might be. It might even be terrifying. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do something he doesn't want. But I am trying to get people who are stuck in a less-than-satisfying system to think expansively, to try something new, to get reaquainted with themselves, and to return to their home relaxed, refreshed, and with a greater sense of appreciation and purpose.

Taking the Pressure Off First Dates

"I don't know how willing I would be to go on a date with a stranger."
(Jacqueline Malan, 25, explaining why she goes on "group dates". From a Wall Street Journal article titled "All Together Now")


When I write about dating, I'm usually addressing the concerns of people who are getting back into the dating scene after a divorce or the break-up of a long-term relationship. I'm thinking of people in their 40's or older, who may feel out of place in bars but who find online dating to be baffling, frustrating, and overly time-consuming.

Mid-life singles are far more likely to be looking for a stable, long-term relationship than for a series of flings, and quite rightly. (I think it was Lenny Bruce who said there's nothing more pathetic than an aging pickup artist). But the search for a "suitable" partner can all too easily turn first dates into inquisitions, where each person is bombarding the other with dozens of make-or-break questions and neither person can sit back, relax, and enjoy the moment. Although it's understandable that someone wouldn't want to waste time on a person who's wrong for them, how can anyone make a good impression if he or she feels under attack? So both people go home unsatisfied, and the next day they're even less enthusiastic about repeating the process with another stranger.

A possible solution to this problem comes from a somewhat unlikely source: the Facebook generation. Accurately or not, twenty-something singles are usually portrayed as interested mainly in brief hookups and "friends with benefits" relationships (the "benefit" being sex). But, according to some sociologists, young people---and young women in particular---are disillusioned with casual sex, and wary of "traditional" first dates, where "Will we go to bed tonight or not?" is the unstated subtext.

In response to this disillusionment, a number of group dating websites have sprung up recently. Ignighter.com encourages new members to enroll their friends and their friends-of-friends. Once a critical mass of members is signed up from a particular geographic area, an "ambassador"---a volunteer social director, in essence---will arrange get-togethers such as beer tastings, bowling nights, hiking trips, and other recreational or social events. Whenever possible, members would be invited to events with at least one of their friends, so that no one feels like the odd person out. What they do there is up to them.

Similar sites include teamdating.com, which has 40,000 members, and iamfreetonight.com, which has 70,000. Facebook has an application called Meet New People, which claims over three million users who are eligible to attend group gatherings (hopefully, not all at the same time).

Although these sites are geared toward young adults, my guess is that the average age of their members will gradually rise (just as the average age of Match.com members has gone from 31 to 48 over the past few years). But mid-life singles don't have to wait, or be the oldest person in the room by twenty years. There are plenty of events right now in almost every city or town that are geared to a more "mature" crowd, and that provide much of the same low-pressure group activities that the online sites I mentioned do.

In my own small town of 30,000 people, there are regularly-scheduled events such as Latin dance classes, wine appreciation parties, drop-in current event discussions at coffee shops, photography workshops, and hiking clubs. In a larger city, you could go to similar events seven nights a week and barely be scratching the surface of what is available. Not all of them are just for singles, but, typically, singles constitute a large percentage of such gatherings. In fact, you're probably better off not going to something solely because it's advertised as singles-only, because if you don't meet someone you like at such an event you'll think of it as a waste of time and money. But if it's an activity you truly enjoy, you'll have a good time no matter who else is there.

The other thing I like about interest-oriented group events is that, unlike online dating sites, you actually get to see how a particular person looks, sounds, dresses, and behaves in public. In the online world, out-of-date photographs and misleading, or totally false, descriptions are all too common. Without wasting time corresponding with a person who ultimately disappoints you, or having to barrage him with personal questions on a first date, you can quickly size someone up at a group event without even letting him or anyone else know what you're doing. And if you find someone interesting, you can approach him or her in an unthreatening way, perhaps with a question or comment about the activity that you both, presumably, enjoy.

But I wouldn't start with, "Hey, you hike here often?" Even Lenny Bruce would groan at that one.

The Gift That---Unfortunately---Keeps On Giving

"A Manhattan lawyer is suing his wife, her lover, and her father, claiming she gave him a venereal disease she contracted while having an affair".
(From a New York Post article, September 21, 2008)



Of all the repercussions that can result from extramarital sex, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, and then passing it on to your spouse, ranks right up there with getting your lover pregnant (or getting pregnant by your lover). But that's what happened to Amy Tanne and her husband, Frederick Tanne.

While looking through his medicine cabinet one day, Mr. Tanne found a herpes-treatment drug that his father-in-law (a physician) had prescribed for Amy. Mr. Tanne demanded to know how Amy could possibly have contracted herpes, since neither one had ever had a sexually transmitted disease previously. She eventually admitted that she had been having an affair with a prominent Westchester County accountant named Robert Stockel, who had presumably given her the disease. Mr. Tanne then had himself tested for herpes and, sure enough, he has it.

At that point, Mr. Tanne, a senior litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a huge (1,400 lawyer) national law firm, decided to sue everyone involved on one legal theory or another. He filed a divorce action against his wife on the grounds of adultery, a separate tort action against Stockel for "knowingly transferring the virus", and another tort claim against his father-in-law and Amy for "conspiring to hide the infidelity and the subsequent infection". In addition to a divorce from Amy, Mr. Tanne is seeking monetary compensation from all three of the defendants for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.

Let me point out here that some of Mr. Tanne's allegations have been denied by the defendants, and it may be many months before the whole story emerges. But the damage has already been done, a lot of it self-inflicted by Mr. Tanne, who apparently has allowed his anger (which is justified, if the allegations are true) to cloud his judgment.

As an experienced litigation lawyer, Mr. Tanne knows that court filings are generally considered public records, unless they are specifically "sealed" by the judge assigned to the case. Given the juicy nature of the case, and the fact that the parties are all high-income, high-profile professionals, it was eminently foreseeable that a tabloid like the Post would ferret out the story and have a field day with it (the headline was "Cuckold 'Sore' at His Wife").

My guess is that Mr. Tanne is less interested in getting a monetary judgment against the defendants---he probably makes well over a million dollars a year at his firm---as he is in punishing them and making life difficult for them. As I said, he has a right to be angry. In fact, he has a right to be very angry; people have gotten killed for less. But just as Mr. Tanne's lawyerly restraint kept him from showing up at Stockel's office with a loaded gun, that same restraint should have kept him from filing legal actions that will wind up humiliating himself more than they humiliate the defendants.

Sadly, clouded judgments and rash actions are all-too-common in divorce cases. It doesn't matter if the person is a lawyer, a doctor, or a Fortune 500 CEO; anger and the lust for revenge will undo decades of professional training. It happened a while back in the Jack Welch divorce case. Welch, one of the most famous corporate executives of our time, had an affair, filed for divorce, but then became an absolute madman when it came to opposing his wife's financial demands. He wound up paying her anyway, but he lost not only a lot of money but a lot of respect among his peers that had taken decades to build up.

The Post article implied that another attorney was representing Mr. Tanne. That's certainly a good thing---we all know the adage about lawyers representing themselves---but I have to wonder whether that lawyer really thought it was a good idea to file the various lawsuits or whether he just gave Mr. Tanne what he wanted. A good divorce lawyer always needs to consider his client's long-term interests. That may mean telling the client (in a diplomatic way, if possible) what he doesn't want to hear. It may also mean talking the client out of revenge-based attacks. This isn't easy to do, especially when the client is a lawyer himself, but it's necessary if the lawyer wants to keep the client from being called a "cuckold" in the newspaper.

The other obvious lesson from this unhappy story is that, in this day and age, if you're going to risk your marriage and your future by having an affair, you shouldn't compound the risk by having unprotected sex. Amy Tanne probably thought that with an educated, high-income professional like Robert Stockel she had nothing to worry about. She was wrong. And now her lapse of judgment, coupled with a very different lapse of judgment on her husband's part, has turned a private affair into a very public spectacle.

Paul Newman's Example

"Sexiness wears thin after a while, and good looks fade. But to be married to a man who makes you laugh every day? Now that's a treat."
(Joanne Woodward)


A lot has been said these past few days about Paul Newman. He was indeed a rare and remarkable man: an exceptional actor, an amateur race car driver who held his own with professional racers half his age, a businessman who gave away every penny of profit----and there were billions of those pennies---to charity.

And he was also very much a husband and family man. Not only was there never a hint of scandal in the entire fifty years of his marriage to Joanne Woodward, but everything he ever said about her and his kids, to his dying day, reflected great love and pride. It was obvious to anyone listening that his family meant far more to him than his fame, his Oscar, and his financial success.

I don't pretend to know anything about what Paul Newman was like in private, but Joanne Newman's quote implies that he was always making her laugh. My guess is that he was not so much a joke-teller as a guy who simply saw the humor in everything: someone who would use humor to get other people (and maybe himself, too) out of a bad mood.

It is a treat, as Joanne Woodward put it, to be married to a person like that. Unfortunately, the reason it's a treat is that it's a relatively rare occurrence. Truth be told, most of us don't make enough of an effort to put smiles on the faces of our spouse or family members. We tend to be absorbed in our own thoughts and problems, and to see other people---even the people we love---as issues to deal with, items on the to-do list. We may be good at solving problems, but not so good at doing the little things (such as keeping things light and loose) that might prevent some of those problems from happening again.

Although there are people who seem to be natural comedians, you don't need advanced stand-up skills to make your spouse laugh (just as you don't need movie star looks to take his or her breath away). All you need is the right attitude. Your attitude should be that life is tough but we can still have fun; that there's a humorous side to nearly everything; that laughter is the best way to break the tension and bring people closer.

Maybe the way to start is to have a mental to-do list that says: 1. Don't take yourself or your problems so seriously. 2. Remember who's really important in your life. 3. Be aware of moods and situations that call for a little humor. 4. Look for something amusing to say, and say it (no matter how silly it may sound). 4. If all else fails, poke fun at yourself. 5. Repeat tomorrow.

Few of us will ever be as talented and accomplished as Paul Newman was, but there's no reason we can't have the kind of marriage that he and his wife had: a marriage notable not only for its long duration but for its laughter, fun, and genuine humanity.

Marriage by the Numbers

"Nearly 70% of the men surveyed said they 'never' think about leaving their wives, whereas nearly half of the women said they think about leaving their husbands occasionally---and sometimes daily."
(From Parade magazine's 9/21/08 Poll on American Marriage)


I'm not necessarily a big believer in polls and surveys. Many surveys are flawed from the start, by failing to get a statistically-significant sampling of different ages and demographic groups, or by asking "loaded" or poorly-worded questions. And even when everything is conducted properly, people don't always answer truthfully, especially when the questions are about love and sex.

But usually you can learn at least something from surveys. I found the Parade results interesting, because in one important respect they confirm and quantify what previous surveys have strongly suggested: that wives are considerably more likely to be unhappy in their marriages than husbands are.

Look at some of the findings:

• When asked, "Do you ever think about leaving your spouse?", twice as many women as men answered "Often" or "Daily".
• When asked, "Overall, which best describes how you feel about your marriage?", twice as many women as men answered "I'm miserable".
• When asked, "If you had to do it again, would you marry the same person?", a much-higher percentage of women than men answered "I'd try to do better", or "Definitely not".
• When asked, "Why don't you have sex with your spouse more often?", 17% of women (but only 12% of men) answered "I've lost sexual interest in my spouse".

I mentioned in a previous blog article that, nationwide, 75% of divorces are filed by women. Not every unhappily-married wife will seek a divorce, and those who do often put up with their frustrations for years before taking that step. But the women who eventually say "Enough is enough" are the ones who today are "Thinking about it often".

When you look at the Parade results from a different angle, it's clear that many husbands are clueless when it comes to their wives' dissatisfactions. For example, men were more likely than women to answer "Yes" to "We talk often and communicate well", and nearly 50% less likely to say "We don't talk to each other enough".

Men should pay more attention to survey results such as these, and realize that just because they're satisfied doesn't mean that there isn't a big problem developing. Too many men are living in a dream world, a fool's paradise, and when reality strikes some day it's not going to be pretty. They'll be like the thousands of men who said in a different survey (one conducted by AARP a couple of years ago) that they never saw the divorce coming. You can almost always see it coming, if you take your blinders off.

Are You SURE the Thrill is Gone?

"The length of our passions no more rests with us than the length of our lives".
(Francois de la Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680)


La Rochefoucauld was not only one of the great writers of his era, he was also an uncommonly perceptive observer of people and their behavior. I often turn to him for practical wisdom, but I have to differ with him, at least in part, about our inability to control the length of our passions.

Yes, it's true that our passions can ebb and flow over time. I'm sure everyone reading this can recall with embarrassment, or even horror, at least one former lover. Somehow, that person who was once the focus of our life now makes us shake our head and wonder what we could possibly have been thinking. And we can probably come up with a few others who were nice enough but who eventually drifted out of our lives without leaving much of a trace.

There's no question that passion can be stirred by illusion, and that illusions are plentiful and powerful when a relationship is new. But it's a mistake to think that passion is something that just happens to us, something we have no control over, rather than something that to a great degree we can sustain through our efforts.

This is a common, but dangerous, mistake in long-term marriages. A lot of people---particularly romantic and passionate people---have affairs or give up on their marriages simply because they don't feel the thrill they used to feel. When it's missing, they assume it's gone forever. I've had divorce clients tell me: "I love him, but I'm not in love with him". I wouldn't tell anyone that she has to live out her days with someone she's no longer in love with (although if that's her only reason for getting divorced, she's going to get heavy criticism from all quarters, including her own friends and family, especially if there are kids involved and he's a good father). But I would urge people in that situation to first ask themselves if they've made every reasonable effort to keep their passion alive.

I think what happens is that people neglect their passions and then call it fate. They get lazy about expressing affection and appreciation, or they expect the other person to express it first or to be just like them in the way they express it. They get bogged down---individually and as a couple---in the often-dreary details of making a living and managing a household. They have lifeless conversations and pointless arguments, and they stop associating their spouse with anything pleasurable or fun.

This is not a happy state to be in, but the choice doesn't have to be between dying a slow death and starting over with a new person. It's possible, in a sense, to start over with the same person. My guess is that in many ways your spouse is still the same person you fell in love with. He may have gained weight, he may get into bad moods more often, he may not be what he once was in bed, but his fundamental qualities---the things that made you passionate for him way back when---are probably intact, although they may be dormant. If he was intelligent then, he's still intelligent now (but maybe he needs some stimulation to bring it out). If he was funny then, he could still be funny now (but maybe he needs to know his humor is appreciated). If he was kind and thoughtful then, he probably hasn't become a self-absorbed narcissist (although he may exasperate you at times).

The goal is to remember how he once was---and how the relationship once was---and figure out how to get the feelings back. At first, you'll probably have to shoulder most of the burden; your spouse may not immediately understand or appreciate what you're trying to do. But stick with it for at least a few months. Be realistic: your marriage didn't go downhill overnight and it's not going to get back on track overnight. But if your passions were strong and not based totally on illusion, and if the two of you haven't done any irreparable harm to each other over the years, you should be able to get those passions back and keep them there.

Defusing Election Year Tensions

"People look at us as if we're opposites. We're not. We're actually very similar people. We're both advocates. We're both passionate. We both like a good, fair fight. My opposite is someone who doesn't have a philosophy of life, who doesn't get fired up over anything".
(Mary Matalin, in salon.com)



Because we live in a time when politics are increasingly polarized and no one listens to anyone with a differing opinion, we tend to be fascinated by those couples who seem to transcend ideology. For years now, high-profile Republican consultant, Mary Matalin, and her husband, high-profile Democratic consultant James Carville, have agreed to disagree on politics, without any apparent harm to their relationship. And Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, seem to be getting along fine despite his being a Republican and her being not only a Democrat but a member of the Kennedy family.

What is especially interesting about these two marriages is that all four people had fully-formed political views by the time they married. They weren't kids when they met. They didn't start out together as, say, young progressives or young conservatives, and then drift off in different directions over the years. They knew what they were getting into from the start.

My guess is that there are a lot more marriages of political opposites than we might imagine, or at least marriages where there is an issue or two on which the spouses disagree. Many people do, of course, evolve in unpredictable ways as they get older. And people are not always ideologically consistent. A couple might agree on abortion rights or charter school vouchers, but disagree on capital punishment or mortgage foreclosure relief. My own congresswoman is considered very liberal on almost every social issue, but she owns a Glock 9 mm. handgun and is a regular at the shooting ranges whenever she's back here in Arizona.

People who have an opposite opinion on a particular issue may actually have a similar underlying goal or philosophy about that issue; their difference may be only in how to achieve the goal. In the gun ownership example, people on both sides of the issue would say that their major concern is safety. Handgun owners believe that their safety---and often the safety of other innocent people---is enhanced by ready access to a loaded gun. Handgun opponents believe that guns injure or kill more innocent people than they protect, because of careless storage or improper use. The two groups may never agree on gun laws, but they would agree, if they thought about it, that they have a common concern for safety.

Finding that underlying philosophical agreement is crucial if you and your spouse don't see eye to eye. It's almost always there if you can put your prejudices aside and look hard enough. It's also crucial to communicate about the issue in a respectful way: no yelling, no sarcasm, no name-calling, no sulking. Explain your points clearly, but don't necessarily try to convert your spouse; it will only make you feel frustrated and angry if the conversion doesn't happen (I should say when it doesn't happen, because instantaneous political conversions are almost nonexistent). Learn to accept that reasonable people can differ. Inject humor into the discussion, if possible. And if all else fails, try saying: "We'll probably never agree, but I still love you".

But the best outcome of all is to recognize, as Mary Matalin does, that passionate people attract passionate people. They may not always agree, but they feed off each other's energy, and in the end they're closer to each other because of it. So feel free to disagree with your spouse, but do it the right way. And try not to lord it over your spouse when your candidate wins.