Talk to any five people in the world and you will get five different opinions on the best ways to maintain a relationship. What each of these people tell you will be a product of their experience, personal desires, and philosophies. None are wrong. But neither are any correct. Every opinion is a representation of how things ‘should’ be, and yet every pairing is filled with its own dynamics that make the working equation different from all others.
I’ve heard recently, and also in the past, from spouses that would “never deny” their partner intimacy, mostly for the fear that they’d find it someplace else. This always sounded like an ideal to me, but I’ve recently started to believe this to be a manifestation of insecurity. It’s a pessimistic view on a relationship to say that denying your spouse the comforts of your body will soon lead them to seek it elsewhere. My experience with Henry has shown me that this can be a much longer process than I once believed.
He’s been facing an intimacy drought that is now stretching into calendar years instead of just months or weeks. Most people who take care of their partners needs whenever called upon could not fathom a break in action that is this long. Frankly, neither can I. But the truth of the matter is that this is so common that marriage counselors have a name for it. ‘Sexless marriages’ are ones in which intimacy occurs less that twice in a twelve month period.
These circumstances are proof that a relationship can, and often does, endure long beyond the cessation of intimacy. Those relationships are also occupied by at least one optimist. The optimistic spouse can endure those long droughts because they don’t seem to feel that intimacy is the tie that binds. It’s just an extension of the relationship’s primary foundation. But again, this definition will be different for every person you ask.
What I do believe is that the person in the relationship that is denied more often than they deny is frequently disappointed and fearful of some other shortcoming. What is it that makes them undesirable at that moment? Why is their spouse’s love not strong enough to make them want to express it physically?
I’ve heard often, and it’s even joked about in cinema and television, that one’s spouse (often the man) only thinks about sex, and as result they just never get any peace. Every time they’re alone, it’s all (he) wants. I’m personally of the belief that one should be grateful that one’s spouse wants it whenever they have the chance. It means that their spouse finds them attractive, and wants to express how they feel about the relationship. Frequent sex can be a great indicator of a fundamentally healthy relationship.
After being turned away frequently, it’s not unreasonable to expect someone to take matters into their own hands. But what happens frequently enough is that matters go from their own hands to someone else’s. Intimacy is an important manifestation of good relationships, to whatever degree and frequency is agreed upon. But when there is a lack of consensus, the one who is turned away can begin to fester in their doubts. Self doubt in particular often finds comfort in the ear of another. Comfort in the ear of another, who was often just the one willing to let someone vent their frustrations, can easily lead to more illicit encounters.
If there’s a disagreement on how often sex should or does occur in the relationship, it’s a conversation that best dealt with quickly. Being faithful to a spouse should not include a clause demanding that one also endure loneliness, doubt, and disappointment. It may not take a week, a month, or even a year for things to erode. But one day…
Henry has dealt with this for nearly two full years, with a steady escalation in recent months. He needs to feel relevant, attractive, and loved. His wife’s long list of justifications for their lack of intimacy cannot do anything to assuage his feelings of emptiness. To accept that your spouse will deny you repeatedly is to deny yourself.
If it is their right to say that you must wait, it is your right to say how long you will wait.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Needs and Wants (Part 2)
I grew up in a religious family. It was a particular sect of Christianity that is historically part of the Protestant Reformation, yet shares no secular ties with any common faiths. What I learned from my youth onward is that the protection of an ideal, or faith, can sometimes come at the expense of truth. Ideals are a fantastic thing to have since it gives you a goal towards which to work. But if one must decline understanding to uphold the ideal, it's of little value.
I talked with 'Henry' again today about how things are going with his wife and his understanding is beginning to change. Henry decided to check his phone records yesterday, and for any of you who have ever needed to do that, you already know what I'm going to tell you. Henry has discovered that his wife has been texting on a near constant basis (at least while Henry is at work) with a male friend from her high-school days.
Though she asserts that her friend is married, this is merely a rationalization, because so is she. Experience shows one thing above all else: If you are in a troubled relationship and your choice of confidante is a person that is the same gender as your significant other, you have not chosen a kind ear, but a person who gives you what your partner could not. That person becomes a surrogate for all the feelings that have gone unfulfilled, and if you are on the fence about what you wish for the future of your relationship, your friend in need can easily become a friend with benefits. A person in her position is unlikely to resist when the conversation inevitably turns flirtatious. And in the new found intimacy of her friendship, that temptation is easily found.
That friend will do nothing to help the relationship. Matters only become more complicated, and the chance of recovery which was tenuous at best, suddenly becomes all but impossible. Please don't confuse this to mean that your friend will not make you feel better. Almost assuredly they will. However, it's important to understand the anyone in the midst of repairing a relationship will take the presence of that third person as a sign that you've moved on, and in the vacuum of their own hurt, they will seek to retaliate. The void will continue to grow unless someone consciously decides to stop it.
Consider the triage of a relationship much like one would treat a trauma victim. The first step is to control the bleeding and then do a damage assessment. Outside contributors, excepting impartial advice from a trained professional, is of little value other than to help you validate your feelings of betrayal. Every time you accept affirmation that your feelings are justified, you take one step further away from repairing the relationship.
Henry is now facing the reality that not only is his wife not talking with him, she's sharing her feelings with someone else. He has gone from a bitter smile to an angered scowl. I see the resignation and he's now weighing the costs of leaving. In his mind, he's preparing for a life apart, wondering how long it will take him to find someone and if she'll make him as happy as his wife used to. He doesn't want another woman, but he will find one to forget about how hurt he is right now. For as long as his wife seeks comfort elsewhere, things will not improve between them.
And that is the truth about troubled relationships: Dealing with it is not comfortable. If one is seeking comfort, they are hiding from the reality. Facing the problem head on, however painful it may be, is the path of progress. As John Kennedy said to the nation, "We will go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Moving on to another endeavor takes no effort. But anything worth doing will involve tears, sleepless nights, and a lot of humility.
For Henry's part, I hope his wife chooses to talk with him about the things that matter, instead of her friend. Keeping her friend around will allow things to evolve into something that cannot be undone. Henry may or may not have the strength to absorb that and still move forward with their relationship. Even if he does, it will rest there in the back of his mind, quietly waiting to squeeze his heart with icy fingers every time he sees something that reminds him of the relationship his wife had with her friend. He will never again be sure of himself, or her. He will bear a stain of anger and hurt for as long as he draws breath.
Some things just never go away.
I talked with 'Henry' again today about how things are going with his wife and his understanding is beginning to change. Henry decided to check his phone records yesterday, and for any of you who have ever needed to do that, you already know what I'm going to tell you. Henry has discovered that his wife has been texting on a near constant basis (at least while Henry is at work) with a male friend from her high-school days.
Though she asserts that her friend is married, this is merely a rationalization, because so is she. Experience shows one thing above all else: If you are in a troubled relationship and your choice of confidante is a person that is the same gender as your significant other, you have not chosen a kind ear, but a person who gives you what your partner could not. That person becomes a surrogate for all the feelings that have gone unfulfilled, and if you are on the fence about what you wish for the future of your relationship, your friend in need can easily become a friend with benefits. A person in her position is unlikely to resist when the conversation inevitably turns flirtatious. And in the new found intimacy of her friendship, that temptation is easily found.
That friend will do nothing to help the relationship. Matters only become more complicated, and the chance of recovery which was tenuous at best, suddenly becomes all but impossible. Please don't confuse this to mean that your friend will not make you feel better. Almost assuredly they will. However, it's important to understand the anyone in the midst of repairing a relationship will take the presence of that third person as a sign that you've moved on, and in the vacuum of their own hurt, they will seek to retaliate. The void will continue to grow unless someone consciously decides to stop it.
Consider the triage of a relationship much like one would treat a trauma victim. The first step is to control the bleeding and then do a damage assessment. Outside contributors, excepting impartial advice from a trained professional, is of little value other than to help you validate your feelings of betrayal. Every time you accept affirmation that your feelings are justified, you take one step further away from repairing the relationship.
Henry is now facing the reality that not only is his wife not talking with him, she's sharing her feelings with someone else. He has gone from a bitter smile to an angered scowl. I see the resignation and he's now weighing the costs of leaving. In his mind, he's preparing for a life apart, wondering how long it will take him to find someone and if she'll make him as happy as his wife used to. He doesn't want another woman, but he will find one to forget about how hurt he is right now. For as long as his wife seeks comfort elsewhere, things will not improve between them.
And that is the truth about troubled relationships: Dealing with it is not comfortable. If one is seeking comfort, they are hiding from the reality. Facing the problem head on, however painful it may be, is the path of progress. As John Kennedy said to the nation, "We will go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Moving on to another endeavor takes no effort. But anything worth doing will involve tears, sleepless nights, and a lot of humility.
For Henry's part, I hope his wife chooses to talk with him about the things that matter, instead of her friend. Keeping her friend around will allow things to evolve into something that cannot be undone. Henry may or may not have the strength to absorb that and still move forward with their relationship. Even if he does, it will rest there in the back of his mind, quietly waiting to squeeze his heart with icy fingers every time he sees something that reminds him of the relationship his wife had with her friend. He will never again be sure of himself, or her. He will bear a stain of anger and hurt for as long as he draws breath.
Some things just never go away.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Molon Labe
The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments this week about the right of states to impose restrictions on firearms that preempt federal regulation. Two years ago, the ban on handguns in Washington D.C. was struck down and the court ruled for the first time that gun ownership was an individual right, not one reserved for militias. At stake now is whether or not the states have the authority to restrict the application of the 2nd Amendment, when all other Bill of Rights provisions are staunchly upheld.
Some make the argument now that the 2nd Amendment is somehow a lesser right that requires careful applications by nature of the immediate and lethal threat it poses. Many news articles are quoting the children’s rhyme we know as ‘sticks and stones’ as justification that the 1st Amendment does not bear the same weight or lethality as the 2nd. Humbly, I disagree.
Every fight I’ve ever witnessed or been part of was immediately preceded by angry words meant to incite violence. Philosophically, I know that violence is a choice and with sufficient self control, words alone cannot goad another to violence. However, philosophy is an exercise in logic, and violence is an expression of emotion. Seldom do logic and emotion intersect.
There are superb examples throughout history of the artful use of words, both for good and for evil. Little more than 77 years ago, a young veteran of the First World War was rising very quickly through the political ranks of post-war Europe. He was intelligent, charismatic, and well spoken. After his appointment to the highest office in his government, he made an impassioned plea to his countrymen that they better themselves, reaping the gifts that their heritage has bestowed. They rallied as a people, frenzied and determined to rebuild their nation. They engineered an infrastructure which no other country could match. Their industry exploded and the people prospered. And in a final stroke of political genius and nationalistic pride, they rounded up every undesirable person in their borders and shipped them away to places like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, and Belzec.
Adolf Hitler had a way with words that few others have ever exhibited. For his skill with words, two-hundred and twenty-five thousand German Jews, and as many as eight-million other German military personnel and civilians died. Quantifying the global impact is far too difficult, so these statistics are limited to German nationals. One could argue that they all died violently in the war, that the direct cause of death was the use of weapons. However, many more died by starvation, gas chamber, and mob action than ever fell to the bullet.
Words, my friends, have a reach far beyond the capabilities of a firearm. There is nothing one can do with a gun that cannot be done with the bare hands of one so artfully inspired by a turn of phrase. I personally do not intend to arm myself only after all diplomatic means have been exhausted. The police have already said that they are not responsible for crimes to which they cannot respond in a timely fashion.
If not now, when? If not them, who?
I have said before that those who wish to deprive you of your liberties will not ask your permission. You must answer back with the loudest voice necessary, or else bear the burden of being robbed of your rights as a human by implied consent. The 2nd Amendment is there because you should not need the government to tell you that you’re allowed to defend yourself. It’s there to acknowledge that you don’t have to ask.
Some make the argument now that the 2nd Amendment is somehow a lesser right that requires careful applications by nature of the immediate and lethal threat it poses. Many news articles are quoting the children’s rhyme we know as ‘sticks and stones’ as justification that the 1st Amendment does not bear the same weight or lethality as the 2nd. Humbly, I disagree.
Every fight I’ve ever witnessed or been part of was immediately preceded by angry words meant to incite violence. Philosophically, I know that violence is a choice and with sufficient self control, words alone cannot goad another to violence. However, philosophy is an exercise in logic, and violence is an expression of emotion. Seldom do logic and emotion intersect.
There are superb examples throughout history of the artful use of words, both for good and for evil. Little more than 77 years ago, a young veteran of the First World War was rising very quickly through the political ranks of post-war Europe. He was intelligent, charismatic, and well spoken. After his appointment to the highest office in his government, he made an impassioned plea to his countrymen that they better themselves, reaping the gifts that their heritage has bestowed. They rallied as a people, frenzied and determined to rebuild their nation. They engineered an infrastructure which no other country could match. Their industry exploded and the people prospered. And in a final stroke of political genius and nationalistic pride, they rounded up every undesirable person in their borders and shipped them away to places like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, and Belzec.
Adolf Hitler had a way with words that few others have ever exhibited. For his skill with words, two-hundred and twenty-five thousand German Jews, and as many as eight-million other German military personnel and civilians died. Quantifying the global impact is far too difficult, so these statistics are limited to German nationals. One could argue that they all died violently in the war, that the direct cause of death was the use of weapons. However, many more died by starvation, gas chamber, and mob action than ever fell to the bullet.
Words, my friends, have a reach far beyond the capabilities of a firearm. There is nothing one can do with a gun that cannot be done with the bare hands of one so artfully inspired by a turn of phrase. I personally do not intend to arm myself only after all diplomatic means have been exhausted. The police have already said that they are not responsible for crimes to which they cannot respond in a timely fashion.
If not now, when? If not them, who?
I have said before that those who wish to deprive you of your liberties will not ask your permission. You must answer back with the loudest voice necessary, or else bear the burden of being robbed of your rights as a human by implied consent. The 2nd Amendment is there because you should not need the government to tell you that you’re allowed to defend yourself. It’s there to acknowledge that you don’t have to ask.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Needs and Wants
I've been talking with this guy at work whom I respect. He smart, diligent, and charming in the way that makes even anxious people feel comfortable. I see him out there every day, hard at work, and taking a moment to joke with his fellow metal workers from time to time. While I wouldn't call him soft-spoken, he's not the boisterous type, nor is he a person whose temper would make you think twice about a joke at his expense. He's humble, but a team player, a guy that you could see playing football without ever being a media sweetheart. We'll call him 'Henry' for the sake of dignity.
I've noticed over the past several months a change in Henry's demeanor. It's subtle, but if you've been through the kind of thing he has, it may as well be a big flashing light above his head. I first became aware of it a few weeks ago, and once I realized what I was seeing, I could trace it back to when his problems first started. I knew how long he'd been dealing with his problem, even if I didn't know it.
You see, most people can joke with friends and after a good laugh, walk away with a smile on their face. It takes a little time for that rush of glee to fade, and for most people, that smile can last well into the undertaking of the next task. But with Henry, it's like someone turns off a switch. There's a quiet heartbreak in his eyes now that reminds me of dementia. For a split second after you approach him, he continues to look past you. But then he recognizes you as a friend and his aura changes to the Henry I first knew. He's a man with two faces these days. There's the face that's distracted from his problems, and there's the face that can't hide the very deep hurt.
Concerned for him, I asked about, and got a very frank synopsis of, what's eating him. In the time it took him to tell me what was wrong, the irony stained surrender in his eyes never changed. He smiled in the way one does when they know they're getting screwed over. The way one does after investing everything and being told it's not enough. The way one does when the person they love just can't trust them enough to return the warmth. It was a bitter smile, through and through.
The details are not necessary to this discussion, but Henry is suffering in the way many of us have. He is in a troubled relationship, and as much as he wants to save it, he needs to stop hurting. Turning that look inward, I admit that what I need and what I want are very different things. I want passion and kink. I need stability and structure.
But are wants any less important that your needs? Needs are finite and immediate. I need water and have a limited time frame in which to fulfill that need before I'm in actual trouble. Same for food, air, shelter, and income. But the wants we have define us as people. Do you want to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights? Do you want to paint a portrait?
Needs and wants separate life from living. For every want we suppress because it's not compatible with our significant other, we lock away a piece of ourselves and make the face we show them a little bit more of a lie. And every one of your partner's wants you rebuff is another brick in the wall of you're-not-good-enough. For Henry's part, he stuck on the outside of a huge brick wall, and not a single stone has his name on it. And when someone you love becomes so occupied with themselves that there's no time left for you, then it becomes clear that they no longer need you.
It's Henry's intent to get his needs met somewhere else, which I don't endorse, but I do understand. In this case, he needs to feel attractive, wanted, and relevant. I'm not sure how long he could go without those things. Only he can. After listening to his story, I believe he's made every reasonable effort. He's even made some unreasonable efforts. I was once thanked for 'meeting on the bridge', for those of you who've seen the Sex in the City movie. Well, Henry showed up on that bridge and no one was there. I don't know how long he's going to hang out, but knowing the kind of guy he is, it won't take him long to find someone who's willing to give as much as he does.
He's a good man, so far as I know. If his version of events is to be believed, then he's probably justified in moving on. Before you call him selfish, know that a selfish person would never endure the heartache that I hear in his words. He's already given away all of himself, and it was spitefully declined.
He may want her, but he doesn't need this.
I've noticed over the past several months a change in Henry's demeanor. It's subtle, but if you've been through the kind of thing he has, it may as well be a big flashing light above his head. I first became aware of it a few weeks ago, and once I realized what I was seeing, I could trace it back to when his problems first started. I knew how long he'd been dealing with his problem, even if I didn't know it.
You see, most people can joke with friends and after a good laugh, walk away with a smile on their face. It takes a little time for that rush of glee to fade, and for most people, that smile can last well into the undertaking of the next task. But with Henry, it's like someone turns off a switch. There's a quiet heartbreak in his eyes now that reminds me of dementia. For a split second after you approach him, he continues to look past you. But then he recognizes you as a friend and his aura changes to the Henry I first knew. He's a man with two faces these days. There's the face that's distracted from his problems, and there's the face that can't hide the very deep hurt.
Concerned for him, I asked about, and got a very frank synopsis of, what's eating him. In the time it took him to tell me what was wrong, the irony stained surrender in his eyes never changed. He smiled in the way one does when they know they're getting screwed over. The way one does after investing everything and being told it's not enough. The way one does when the person they love just can't trust them enough to return the warmth. It was a bitter smile, through and through.
The details are not necessary to this discussion, but Henry is suffering in the way many of us have. He is in a troubled relationship, and as much as he wants to save it, he needs to stop hurting. Turning that look inward, I admit that what I need and what I want are very different things. I want passion and kink. I need stability and structure.
But are wants any less important that your needs? Needs are finite and immediate. I need water and have a limited time frame in which to fulfill that need before I'm in actual trouble. Same for food, air, shelter, and income. But the wants we have define us as people. Do you want to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you want to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights? Do you want to paint a portrait?
Needs and wants separate life from living. For every want we suppress because it's not compatible with our significant other, we lock away a piece of ourselves and make the face we show them a little bit more of a lie. And every one of your partner's wants you rebuff is another brick in the wall of you're-not-good-enough. For Henry's part, he stuck on the outside of a huge brick wall, and not a single stone has his name on it. And when someone you love becomes so occupied with themselves that there's no time left for you, then it becomes clear that they no longer need you.
It's Henry's intent to get his needs met somewhere else, which I don't endorse, but I do understand. In this case, he needs to feel attractive, wanted, and relevant. I'm not sure how long he could go without those things. Only he can. After listening to his story, I believe he's made every reasonable effort. He's even made some unreasonable efforts. I was once thanked for 'meeting on the bridge', for those of you who've seen the Sex in the City movie. Well, Henry showed up on that bridge and no one was there. I don't know how long he's going to hang out, but knowing the kind of guy he is, it won't take him long to find someone who's willing to give as much as he does.
He's a good man, so far as I know. If his version of events is to be believed, then he's probably justified in moving on. Before you call him selfish, know that a selfish person would never endure the heartache that I hear in his words. He's already given away all of himself, and it was spitefully declined.
He may want her, but he doesn't need this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)