Fidelity sucks.
Not in the abstract, of course - in the abstract it is a worthy ideal and certainly makes paternity and the sharing of possessions quite a bit easier. But specific instances, like say during the X number of years that your husband is blatantly uninterested in sex with you (or in general, it's hard to say), test the limits of that particular ethic.
Sometimes I feel like I'm paying for the sins of every woman who ever had a baby and then refused to have sex with her husband again. And I swear that every married person I know with kids has some variation of this complaint. What is WRONG with people? I want to be faithful, really I do -- but it is frustrating. In What Do Women Want? Erika Jong wrote that we all need mystery, danger, and ultimately, fantasy in our lives.
No shit.
And besides that, I want some mind-blowing, furniture-splintering, rock-my-world boot-knocking. (Ok, and maybe a little tiny bit of back-scratching and neck-nibbling...and maybe...never mind.) Is that wrong?
My personal theory is that maybe we need to institute a three-year contract review, whether it's within the context of marriage or a long-term relationship. Kind of like an annual review at work -- we sit down, we look at what's working, what's not working, what the goals are for the next three years, what next steps are. Maybe you are happy with the way things are so you renew the contract as is. Maybe you renegotiate the terms entirely. Maybe you take a sabbatical or leave of absence if necessary to recharge (I am particularly fond of this idea at the moment). Maybe you dissolve the contract and move on.
Of course the religious right, having absolutely no imagination or sense of humor, would come up with Proposition 37, which would make it illegal to take a marriage sabbatical on the chance that actually allowing people to explore other options would destroy the sanctity of marriage rather than allowing them to retain their sanity and act like grownups for a change.
How hard could this be? I think it also takes into account that people do not stay the same over the course of their lives -- who you are and what your goals are when you're in your 20's and 30's is likely to look very different when you're in your 40's, 50's and beyond. Some people do a good job of communicating, managing expectations, and changing together, and some people don't. In my own private utopian world (run by me, of course), the 3-Year Contract Rule would help with that -- at least it would all be out in the open, regularly scheduled, something to plan for and strategize around.
Maybe I should write my own Proposition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
3 years is too long. Might be better annually. With a referee. And drinks (but not too many).
What if it isn't about sex at all?
Boot knocking?
No, annually is too short - there has to be SOME incentive to stick around through a rough patch. But I like the idea of the referee. Drinks could get ugly, but perhaps some fine Columbian to mellow things out...
I understand it could be about something other than sex. Still. Woman does not live by abstinence alone. Seriously -- I have new empathy for every man who's ever had to live like this.
I've never had a single married person try to sell me on the benefits of marriage. I have had many married people wonder aloud to me when the last year they had sex was.
I think it was best summed up by a lass who said: "It's like having a best friend. And sometimes, that really, really sucks." I don't think she'd know the difference between eros and agape, but that's what she was getting at. And then she said, "Pistols, don't ever get married." And I haven't.
Post a Comment