The definition of love is not determined by the way we believe most people act with their lovers.
___
One of the best essays ever written about marriage is Truman Capote’s Mojave, available in his collection Music for Chameleons. I teach this book every semester in a remedial community college English class, and have been doing so for about five years. I’m always struck by the discussions it generates and feel they illuminate what many of us believe about love.
◊♦◊
The essay concerns a young woman, Sarah Whitelaw, married to George, a member of New York’s very elite upper class. Sarah, however, is dissatisfied with George (to put it mildly), and she has an affair with her therapist, Dr. Bentsen. One day it dawns on her that she loathes the Dr., a disgusting and manipulative twit, and she dumps him.
Afterwards, Sara comes home to have a lengthy, very intimate conversation with George—in fact, her husband delivers a clever, brilliantly written monologue. By the end of the essay, Capote reveals that Sarah has been arranging sexual affairs for her husband, all while he has been turning his eyes away from her own trysts.
What should we do when we realize we cannot satisfy the people we love, sexually or otherwise?
|
The essay is not simply about dissatisfaction. It’s about betrayal, sexual possession and control—ultimately, it’s also about forgiveness and compassion. George tricks Sarah (he gets her drunk) into becoming pregnant and threatens her with divorce if she has an abortion. She ends up having a difficult delivery and, afterwards, cannot handle even the thought of sex with George again. Of course, she’d lose a lot from a divorce; it’s also clear, certainly by essay’s end, that despite all their hardships, Sarah and George really do love each other. When she goes through potential sex partners for him, she does not merely think about which ones will stay within certain bounds. Sarah also wants him to have pleasant experiences.
♦◊♦
Students, most of them younger than 23, always have very serious trouble with Sarah’s arrangement. I ask them if hers is an act of love. It’s rare for any of them to believe that it is. Most of them believe that, even though Sarah will not have sex with her husband, George should still be expected to remain “faithful” to her. George should remain in a sexless marriage, either because he deserves punishment for his manipulations or because it’s the moral thing to do.
If we cannot satisfy our lovers, they have to learn to deal with us. After all, they agreed to be ours.
|
I’m not revealing the entire complexity of George and Sarah’s marriage—it’s loaded with guilt, deception, passive-aggressive anger, and Sarah’s low self-esteem leads her to make rather masochistic decisions. George is also self-conscious and seeks feelings of power through sexual conquest. But now in his early 50’s, he begins to feel less and less attractive to younger women. A kid half his age eventually steals a lover from him.
Interestingly, Sarah and George have completely open conversations about all these things. While George has been withholding some information from his wife, in the end everything is revealed. Quite typically, Capote leaves the ending suggestive but also open-ended: it’s possible to interpret that Sarah might be thinking about trying to rekindle the sexuality they lost. They’re stuck with each other, so they must make the best of it one way or another. Their marriage and life should improve dramatically, they seem to conclude, if they just forgive and start again.
◊♦◊
Students, however, believe Sarah and George cannot possibly feel love. The reason is very interesting. The students claim they could not themselves behave the way George and Sarah do. They could not be this open with their lovers, certainly not about extra-marital affairs, and they say they would never allow a lover to seek satisfaction elsewhere. They’d cheat if they wanted to, and some of them even admit in public that they have cheated on lovers or spouses. But they would have no reason to admit it to their lovers unless they were caught.
So follow the logic: because Sarah and George act differently from how my students understand “love”, it means George and Sarah cannot possibly feel it sincerely.
When I ask them if they agree that we’re not really in love if we desire to control our partner’s behaviors and thoughts, no matter how they have harmed us, they agree in principle but not in practice. What should we do, I ask, when we realize we cannot satisfy the people we love, sexually or otherwise? If we are interested in a lover’s welfare and happiness, how should we act? Some students will say that we should let them go. The majority, however, admit that their primary goal is not to love but to possess. If we cannot satisfy our lovers, they have to learn to deal with us. After all, they agreed to be ours.
What bothers me about these conversations is the ultimate conclusion. Sarah, they believe, cannot be expressing love when she’s acting in an unusual way. But my students’ possessive behavior—their desire that their partner hold on to the rules even when they’re getting nothing out of them—is normal and common. Therefore, it’s actually love because a majority can’t be wrong. When I ask them if Capote can be criticizing most of our relationships as expressions of possession and control, not love, they disagree strongly. It can’t be true. If it were, Capote would be criticizing them.
Of course, he is criticizing so many of us, himself included. We are taught that our lovers are people we have, players in a pantheon where we play monarch.
I wonder what can be done to change this cultural assumption. How might it affect our overall health and satisfaction if we could find a way to transform this idea? Where should it begin?
Photo by Marilia Almeida/Flickr.
This is a reply to this article and to the article regarding why men don’t cheat. Marriage is a commitment, a promise, sacred and pure (supposed to be), symbol of unselfishness and faithful love. It is a partnership. It is beautiful. Marriage is not made for everyone and to try and find ways to twist it and make it work for everyone sickens me. Not everyone can be faithful in the mind and the heart. Not everyone could imagine being responsible for anyone other than themself. Marriage is just not for everyone. To even fathom considering having sex with a… Read more »
Hi everybody
This thread has died out. But I hope the discussion will continue on new threads, about how we live and love , married or not…
Here is an article from today’s The Guardian.
In praise of adultery:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/04/hanif-kureishi-praise-adultery-week-end
✺” was the repression worth it? Had too much that was essential been sacrificed for the ideal? How much of yourself could you give up and remain “authentic”? Couldn’t there be less painful or difficult, more satisfying ways to live, more in line with “human nature”, as the Romantics might have put it?”✺
Is it any “worse” (morally or otherwise) of a married couple bringing in an extra person for sex, presuming they are both open and agreeing on it, than any other sort of non-married sexual relationship?
Regarding responsibilities towards the unmarried partner, I mean?
Hi Cornelis
Yes,we have a language barrier and we also live in different cultures.
My point is that we should alway treat others with dignity and respect when when we have sex .
How we treat others sexually will shape who we are as persons and it also affects others,sometimes more deeply than we want to acknowledge.
Corrections
I was wrong when I said Beauvoir lived in open marriage.
Simon de Beauvoir was not in an open marriage,but an open relationship.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html
Hi Cornelius You write: “As long as we are honest and open with others about our intentions and motivations, and give others the space to make decisions for themselves, we can behave morally in monogamous and non-monogamous situations. If our moral compass is at risk of breaking, it is because of our insistence on adhering to rules rather than reducing harm.” Imagine you are the man in a marriage that decides to live like you describe it here. You are “free” sexually and go in the world convinced that neither you,your wife or the partner you have sex with will… Read more »
Living a morally consistent life is by no means easy, and doesn’t mean no one will ever get hurt. Where did you get the idea that it does? People’s feelings shift and change. Someone who was okay with a casual relationship might later want something more. If you’ve been honest with them about what you can give, it’s not a moral failure when they’re hurt or disappointed you can’t give more. There are too many assumptions in your scenario to unpack fully. Is it reasonable to expect someone to be “equally” devoted to two women and their kids? Do the… Read more »
Hi Cornelius Maybe you live in an open marriage and have lots of experience. I have only been married and said no thank you to my husbands wish for an open marriage. If you are married in America, the contract is between two persons. I am not against marriage among more than two but right now that is not an option in the West. So only two can be married. If you know all the legal implications it means that a married man( or woman) can for example never have the same relationship legally to their sex partners outside of… Read more »
I’d ask you to consider some of your assumptions. First, why should all of the relationships be equal? Why does he have to provide health insurance and pension to his lovers? You seem to be assuming a transactional model of relationships, one in which a man provides for the material well-being of his partners and they provide what for him in return? Sex? Childbearing? Anecdotes make for poor arguments. I know plenty of people who regret the monogamous marriages they entered into, some of whom have ended those relationships (or are in the process of doing so). If we can… Read more »
Hi Cornelius ✺”’d ask you to consider some of your assumptions. First, why should all of the relationships be equal?”✺ I dislike when we have some sexual relationships where some partner has less respect and less rights. So I also dislike prostitution. But please don’t ask me about my view about morality and prostitution.. I think everybody should be treated with dignity and respect in sexual relationships and I doubt it is possible when a married couple “bring in others for sex”. In fact I think it is impossible. Maybe you are married and live like that . That is… Read more »
I’m sorry I misunderstood you. When you replied to my comment about monogamy not being a more moral choice than non-monogamy, I thought you were disagreeing. But here is looks like you’re neither agreeing nor disagreeing (or am I misreading you again) and instead are saying that you prefer monogamy for yourself (and also for others? I don’t know how to interpret your “I don’t like it. And I don’t have [to] applaud it”). I might respond to your points, but I suspect the language barrier might only cause more misunderstanding. I do wish I was more familiar with a… Read more »
https://goodmenproject.com/marriage-2/one-plus-one-equals-three/
I think this piece makes Iben’s point, actually.
Do you really think that couple had the respect for her as for one another. Hell no! She was just a woman to satisfy a sexual need/urge. A prostitute would have achieved the same thing for the couple. As for the lady who had sex with the couple, she says she is essentially empowered and happy. Well, I cannot doubt what she says.
However, there is just something demeaning about the whole thing. Just my opinion. I would not like my wife to be treated like a prostitute.
I recall some years ago, a friend expressed concern about the failure of a 3rd marriage (implied was failure as a person). I replied that the person didn’t fail marriage: marriage failed the person! It seems to me that in time, marriage as we know it fails most people, as one cannot possess another. Yet to evolve an open relationship some features require development, initially in both members of the couple, then in 3rd parties. These include honesty, at a level most of us fear, equity, that sense that one is not left behind in the process, and care, that… Read more »
@Graeme,
Maybe serial marriage is the answer? A series of civil unions over a life, if one so desire.
I am divorced and will never marry again. But, I do think it IS possible to love and be with one woman (i am hetero male) over a life time AND be happy/fulfilled. However, I think this possibility, statistically speaking, is rather low.
What seems to be lacking is a clear definition of “LOVE” in the sense applied here – and whether this is something preferable to “Possession” within this context. George getting Sarah drunk to essentially force her to have a child – which could have ended much worse for both she and the child – is not the type of love most women would want. It doesn’t seem to be the type of love that even Sarah, in all her enigmatic ways, seems to care for since she could not bring her self to show physical affection for George subsequently. Is… Read more »
‘because a majority can’t be wrong’
Actually they can be
@Selina,
Usually the majority IS wrong.
As I tell my clients, “if you follow the crowd, you end up like the crowd.”
I guess my only question is why choose marriage if this is the type of arrangement you’d want? I’ve met a few people who seem to truly make polyamorous situations work (not sure if I would/could go that route myself). Though I suppose some people might have started in a more “traditional” marriage and then realized that it didn’t quite meet their needs though they still loved their partner. I think the most striking issue here to me is that we still seem to think what other people do is any of our business! I have a hard enough time… Read more »
Why not choose marriage?
I think that what muddles the waters is that, in the eyes of the authorities, marriage is mostly an institution for settling legal and economical responsibilities.
The part about sexual exclusivity/monogamy is more or less just a side effect on that, dating back to pre-contraceptive times, that we infringe upon ourselves. “Faithful” is stated in the vows, but as far as I know it is not explicitly stated as monogamous. Just don’t do it behind your partner’s back. And also, there’s not many Westerns societies where adultery is against the law.
I think the contradiction to most people is that Sarah is truly in love with George and sees to his happiness, therefore allowing him sexual satisfaction with other people, that she’s inable to give.
But at the same time the verdict is that if George held equal love for Sarah, he wouldn’t go outside.
So instead of possession, it becomes more of a competition in sacrifice. We like to view it as the one who loves the most is the one who gives up the most (happiness and/or sexual exclusivity, in this case).
Yeah, we have this fetish about sacrifice. I’m not a cultural historian, but if I had to lay my money on the table, I’d say this is Christianity’s influence. What if George’s equal love for Sarah finds itself expressed by virtue of his adherence to the affairs she arranges, this when he could go outside of her arrangement to satisfy himself, his ego, and his desire for sexual conquest. He’s not a liar like Draper. He quite literally sleeps with the women Sarah lets him sleep with. When he withholds information from her, it’s that he breaks off some of… Read more »
@FlyingKal,
Excellent perspective!
When I was married and miserable, I fought with myself over whether to find satisfaction else where (i.e,. take a lover). I stayed strong in my convictions that I shall not commit adultery. Enormous self sacrifice.
So, if my ex- wife really loved me then I should not have been in that circumstance to start with. Right?
Thanks FlyingKal
Thanks Jules.
I am as caught up in this catch 22 as anyone else, so I don’t have any answers about what’s right or wrong, what anyone should or shouldn’t do, or shouldn’t have done, in a case like this.
I think that all we can do is try to find a way that works for us as individuals, a way where we can actually live with and look in the mirror every day. And I salute you, I see you as a man of integrity who found a way that worked for you.
Hi Gint ✺ “The majority, however, admit that their primary goal is not to love but to possess. If we cannot satisfy our lovers, they have to learn to deal with us. After all, they agreed to be ours.”✺ This is scary attitudes . Here is my thought on this marriage problem. I hate it when married persons bring in outsides for sex to make their marriage work or “give love to each other.” That is sexual exploitation of thirds parts that can never be equal partner in reciprocal relationship and never will be lovers for the rest of their… Read more »
Iben, I hear your concerns, and I wish I could write a 20,000 word article on this subject, because it’s something I’ve come to start thinking about. My Zen practice has taught me to realize how easily my mind “grabs” virtually everything around me. Capote’s essay, also, is far more nuanced than what I could explain in a short piece like this. Sarah doesn’t want to divorce. She’s trapped both by convention and by a sense of need. Some of the lovers she finds for her husband end up complicating matters, in once case because the mistress demands he divorce… Read more »
@Gint Aras…
Hi Gent! I loved the article.
“When we try to follow some guidebook of social expectation, we ruin ourselves.”
I tend to agree Gint. We have to follow our own individual moral compass.
My thinking is very similar to Iben. Such a lifestyle as Sarah and George I could never engage. Though no longer married, I am a strictly monogamous man. I am not a womanizer or serial dater. I revere longevity and permanency.
But there must be some moral compass in any society. Otherwise, I think we will only get decay and decadence.
But what of morality? Where is the moral harm? Monogamy is not a “moral” choice, nor is celibacy or polyamory. They are all behaviors, descriptions of how we interact (or not) with others sexually. As long as we are honest and open with others about our intentions and motivations, and give others the space to make decisions for themselves, we can behave morally in monogamous and non-monogamous situations. If our moral compass is at risk of breaking, it is because of our insistence on adhering to rules rather than reducing harm. And so it is that we find ourselves judging… Read more »
@Cornelius Walker… What I am trying to say is that any society must have minimum standards of morality, conduct, and decency. What are those? It is up to society to determine such behavior. Issues that involve matters such as marriage, monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, should NOT be the business of the State, government, etc. If people want to have polygamous marriage, that is their business. Not government. The minimum moral standard I speak of pertain to things like murder, rape,….. “It’s a strange sense of morality to judge the person knowingly causing harm as behaving in a more just manner.” I… Read more »
Hi Gint
I hope I will find this book in my library.
Actually I think the most interesting debate after this essay Mojave, is to ask what is marriage all about in our society today. That couples stay together even when they sleep with others is hardly new.
But what is marriage?
Is it an institution,
a sacrament and a promise for life, a legal contract between the two and society, a privileged lifestyle that the others must admire and respect, a smart economic arrangement ?
Two persons make a contract, and suddenly they are family.
@Iben… Hi Iben! You wrote, ” That is sexual exploitation of thirds parts that can never be equal partner in reciprocal relationship and never will be lovers for the rest of their life unless of course this marriage is a polyamorous marriage. But that is not legal in America today.” I think you meant polygamous marriage. Polygamy is not legal in the US in any state. Under our constitutional laws, marriage is governed at the state level. So, each of the 50 states have their own laws regarding marriage. This also means that other states must respect those laws regarding… Read more »
Hi Jules I expressed myself unclearly. It is hard to express in words , but it looks to me that lovers and mistresses to married persons always end up as the loosing part because we all respect marriage no matter what happens. It is not three or four persons that all are treated with the same dignity and respect. I don’t like double standards. We have same sex marriage in my country but as far as I know they can not marry in church. The church leaders are divided about homosexuality. If the lesbians are married they have right help… Read more »
I wonder what can be done to change this cultural assumption. 1. look at other deeply held american cultural assumptions that have changed (eg. attitudes towards black americans, women’s role, gay men) and the mechanisms of the change. 2. america is a religious country so anyone advocating for this change will face opposition from interpretations of religious texts, as the above groups did/do. so open-marriage/relationship advocates would probably need a sacred-text based counter to those particular arguments against open-marriage/relationship Students, however, believe Sarah and George cannot possibly feel love. The reason is very interesting. The students claim they could not… Read more »
it’s a pretty funky issue that stems on what individual people get out of sex….and marriage. Right in the vows it gets pretty possessive. “To have and to hold”.
I used to think that the phrase referred to affectionate possession and attachment that one spouse felt for the other. Then I learned that the phrase “To Have and To Hold” is used on deeds and other legal documents which transfer real estate or other property. The seller is giving certain property over to the buyer “to have and to hold.” Just another reminder that marriage was (and in many places, still is) a property transaction.
Hi Gint Aras
You ask interesting questions here. I look forward to read comments to your article.
Yes, and allowing bad films and television shows to guide us is not the way. Ha! (Example: “Bridezilla”).
Well, that’s just it. Everyone wants to believe that their way is the only way. Just because it does not work for some, doesn’t mean it cannot work for others. I had friends, a couple, who had a very open arrangement that would be considered by many to be taboo or not the “norm.” But who are we to judge someone else’s relationship? People do have needs and if Sarah found a workable solution t hat she and George both agreed with, then it worked for them. I don’t think you can put “love” in a box. Not everyone experiences… Read more »
That is exactly Capote’s point. We let talk shows and bad films guide us into making absolute definitions of our emotional constructs. And we’ve gotten to the point that we’re unable to see when we’re being criticized for it.