...

Editor’s Pick
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 5:50PM

Is Infidelity A Gender Issue?

Rate: 10 Flag

In August, architecture critic and author Philip Nobel wrote a piece for Elle about his affair with his twenty-something research assistant and subsequent divorce from his wife of ten years.

The response online, particularly from women, was huge. Run a search for “Philip Nobel” and you’ll find freelance journalist Lindsay Beyerstein’s “Worst Person On Earth” treatise among the top three.

Worst person on earth. I could expect that sort of reaction from Nobel’s ex-wife in a moment of rightful rage, but from someone unrelated to the situation? The consensus at Jezebel, Gawker Media’s excellent women’s pop culture blog, which covered the story over the course of August, is that Nobel is an entitled creep who is trying to excuse his behavior and somehow prove he has come a long way thanks to his recklessness (and cheap comparisons to his twenty-something former mistress, whose naïveté now is evident to him in his new-found maturity).

“Nobel said that his piece in Elle was about ‘the burden of being a lightning rod for the fears of women and the resentments of burdened men,’” writes Jezebel editorial assistant Jessica Grose. “The implication there is that all married men, even the ones who are happily married, are burdened by the responsibility placed on them by their nagging harpy wives.”

“Lots of women are afraid of getting dumped for a younger model,” Anna N. concedes, “and when someone does this, we’re not exactly going to be thrilled.” She has more to say in another piece:

What Nobel did may not be ‘contagious,’ but it happens often enough to make a lot of women worry. We worry that a man will do grown-up things with us, like marry and have kids, or just fall in love and make us feel safe, and then he'll announce that he never really grew up at all and that he needs to go back to his twenties, with a twenty-something girlfriend to match.… Of course, none of this is solely Nobel’s fault. It’s the fault of a culture that trumpets the sanctity of marriage while painting male fidelity as lame. And that casts older women as unsexy and unsexual. The solution to this problem isn't to force people like Nobel to stay in unhappy marriages—it’s to understand the sexual double standard that makes women feel so vulnerable, and to set about changing it.

Funny, until I read it in Jezebel, I didn’t think of this as a gender issue at all.

BETWEEN THE BLISS AND THE BLITZKRIEG

I found marriage difficult from the beginning. Not unpleasantly so, but enough that when my friends ask me, “how’s married life treating you?” the reply never changes: “it’s somewhere between the bliss and the blitzkrieg.”

Like Nobel, I married someone very different. I’m an insatiably curious information monger, ready to go where the story takes me without so much as an itinerary. My husband is the practical type. He doesn’t retain data he doesn’t need and everything he does is carefully orchestrated.

We have different breeds of intelligence. “If we get stranded in the Mojave, I’m glad to know that someone will have thought to pack some water while I’ve been too busy wondering about the impact of Pluto’s demotion on my astrological chart,” I joked when we got married.

I know men who are more like me than my husband—I’ve dated quite a few of them. There’s a reason I didn’t marry them. But I know what Nobel is talking about, too, when he talks about adjusting his diction and editing out the allusions he thought would fly over his wife's head. And so does my husband.

He still confuses Schrödinger with Smirnoff and I still have no idea what a 1003 is or what to do with it. And that’s fine—I never believed my spouse should be everything to me.

But every once in a while, I know we both wish we could talk about those things that inspire us and see the same gleam of excitement in each other’s eyes.

THE STRAY-AT-HOME MOM

“Are you a stray-at-home mom?” KTLA’s Leila Feinstein asked, leading in to a new story as I vegetated in bed next to Richard one warm May night. “According to a survey conducted by Cookie Magazine and AOL, one in three stay-at-home mothers have cheated on their husbands. The reason? They don’t feel they’re getting it enough.”

One in three women have cheated on their husbands? I immediately jumped on the web and looked up the details of the Sex and the American Mom survey and was surprised to find, according to The Huffington Post, that the sample was an impressive 30,000 stay-at-home moms.

The following month, Details had a piece about the new breed of men trying to nail the missus (among them the understanding boss, the yoga instructor, the stay-at-home-dad with whom she hangs out at play dates, etc.).

“I see more women who cheat than men,” says Tina Tessina, a psychotherapist and the author of The Commuter Marriage: Keep Your Relationship Close While You’re Far Apart. [Author Susan Shapiro] Barash estimates that close to 60 percent of married women have had extramarital sex.
“With men’s affairs, it tends to be not enough sex—with women it tends to be not enough attention or interaction,” Tessina says. According to Barash, most women feel an “unrelenting need for romance and excitement.” And they’re not getting it in the half hour they spend flipping through magazines while you watch The Daily Show every night after the kids go to bed.

The reasons given for women's cheating may be inconsistent, but the statistics provided remain like an offensive stain. Really?

BECAUSE I CAN

During a dinner at the home of a renown politico, someone congratulated Isabel Allende for a satirical article she’d published and asked whether she ever planned to write “something serious.” Embarrassed, the then-young writer responded “yes, I’d like to interview a woman who is unfaithful.”

“A heavy silence descended on the table and the conversation turned to the food,” she recalls. “But when the time for coffee came, the mistress of the house--thirty-eight, svelte, the executive in a government office in a Chanel suit--took me aside and told me that if I swore I would keep her identity secret, she would accept the interview.”

At her office the next day, the executive confessed she was unfaithful for the following reasons: she had ample free time after lunch, sex was good for one’s spirit, one’s health, and one’s self-esteem and because men were not so bad after all.

“That is to say, the very same reasons that so many husbands are unfaithful, possibly her own among them,” Allende concludes. “She was not in love, did not suffer any guilt, and maintained a discrete garçonière that she shared only with friends as liberated as she.”

CUM YE UNFAITHFUL

“Of course people are surprised by the study,” my friend Joan told me when I decided to reproduce Allende’s interview of the unfaithful woman. “Women have always cheated as much as men. We just don’t get caught. Not because we’re smarter, but because we don’t want to. Men in this country seek everything in the same place, have you noticed? When they cheat, they’re usually looking for a replacement. Women are more realistic and know how to multitask. We look for supplements.”

Susan Shapiro Barash, author of A Passion For More: Wives Reveal Affairs That Make Or Break Their Marriages, agrees: “Women having affair aren’t looking to replicate the feelings in their marriage. They’re looking for what they can’t get in a marriage.”

MARRIAGE WITHOUT FRILLS

In their book The Mirages of Marriage, William Lederer and Don Jackson analyzed the marital relationship in terms of the systems concept, providing a no-nonsense manual for how to undertake a functional marriage.

The book is so devoid of frills that if read prior to marriage, it could make even the most enamored have second thoughts—which may explain why I think it’s the best engagement gift one could ever give, yet one I’ll probably never dare give.

On their wedding day, a young man and a young woman, standing before the priest, minister, or justice of the peace, usually have a high opinion of one another. They overflow with joyous thoughts. Each has a firm intention of pleasing and nourishing the cherished person who is about to become a partner for life.
Some years later, (the highest incidence of divorce, excluding teenagers, is after ten or so years) the same two people may be living in a chronic situation of hate, fear, and confusion. Each spouse in such a marriage may blame the other and defensively emphasize how he* tried to be loving, tried to make the marriage a success, and tried to keep the other from sabotaging the effort.
What causes such frightful changes? What brings about such startling emotional and behavioral metamorphoses?
The most easily apparent causes are the failure to pick a suitable mate, and the failure—once a mate has been chosen—to work out relationship rules that will be durable and equitable.
*To avoid the awkward repetition of “he or she,” the terms “he,” “him,” and “his” have been employed throughout the book to refer to either spouse—husband or wife.

I DO?

“Marriage is like a newspaper,” the author Raymond Chandler once said. “It has to be made fresh every damned day of every damned year.”

It’s true. Anyone who has any experience with marriage will not hesitate to tell you that marriage is hard work. As early as 1968, when The Mirage of Marriage was written, its authors were cautioning about the institution: “American thinking patterns and traditional American values concerning marriage rusty, broken-down, obsolete.”

Philip Nobel happens to agree. In an interview with Anna N. of Jezebel, he went as far as to suggest that Jezebel should enforce a marriage strike until the institution is fixed, saying that “maybe there’s something wrong at the structural level with the whole idea of state-sanctioned monogamy.”

Unfortunately, neither Nobel nor the writers at Jezebel know how it can be fixed. Which makes me wonder: If marriage is essentially a challenge few of us can pass without half killing a vital part of ourselves, why do we keep doing it? Why are we so ready and willing to deny our needs and give up things we may want so much, that we'll go insane and end up doing everything in our power to get them later, consequences be damned?

My friend John put it best: “from birth, 30 percent of your being is normally consumed by the pain of loneliness. Being in a relationship solves the vital, killer problem of loneliness. But what no one tells you is that once you solve that problem by being in a real relationship, that 30 percent pain is replaced by about 29.8 percent frustration and anger about other, new issues.”

Are we just afraid to die alone (our corpses eaten by our beloved pets, to borrow one of the comic elements in Nobel's piece)?

LIVE AND LEARN, LOVE AND BLOG

“All human beings perform unilateral and selfish acts,” Lederer and Jackson write in The Mirages of Marriage. “To do so is not always bad; it sometimes can be wholesome if the individual knows what is happening. But under no circumstances can these acts be regarded as loving, and the first requirement for a workable marriage is to live and relate on the basis of reality, not of myths, obsolete and meaningless traditions, and self-deceit.”

Philip Nobel is not the worst person on earth. He's is a symptom of our mess. The construct of matrimony as we know it no longer fits: we’re more individualistic, more isolated, more mobile, more ADD, more demanding in terms of instant gratification than we were 40 years ago when Lederer and Jackson first pointed out that the institution was obsolete.

If we can see further, it’s not so much that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but that we’re standing on the wreckage of the marriages that have crumbled before us.

AV Flox is a freelance writer who splits her time between California and Arizona. She and her husband have no children or pets, only properties and neuroses. You can read more on her blog OMG. OMG! OMFG!

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
There is no fixing marriage. It should be scrapped for social contracting.

(rated)
My solution is taking the right SSRI at the right dose - enough reduction in sexual desire that I don't think about it that much but the right amount of energy for when the wife is in the mood.

I think SSRIs (the ones that reduce sexual desire) could be a great tool for couples therapy.
I think you're right to assert that the construct of matrimony as we know / knew it no longer fits, and I wonder (personally, for myself, and also in general, for everyone else) if those things that we have basically learned from our contemporary American social lives (i.e., individualism, isolation, mobility, ADD, instant gratification, etc.) have contributed to the rise in the occurrence of infidelities, regardless of gender. After all, marriage, or any committed relationship, IS work. But I think that our communal "threshold" for the sheer amount of work it sometimes entails has fallen, and drastically, to the point at which even the slightest bit of real "work" on our parts in our relationships is so easily discarded in favor of those "flings" that are (at least comparatively) far "easier".
There's something about the way Philip Nobel tells his story that makes him an unsympathetic character. He's trying to project an image of womanizing and suffering at the same time which makes him come across as an ass.
Yablonowitz: I find the suggestion that we should alter our chemistry in order to properly engage in long-term monogamous unions deeply disturbing. If the requirement for success is one that effectively changes the human animal, then doesn't that indicate that maybe the institution isn't suitable for the creatures in question?

Atherton Bartelby: It's entirely possible that without the constraints of a more homogeneous society, based on rigid roles and expectations, there is no hope for such an unnatural arrangement as long-term monogamous involvement. But I don't have any answers, I'm just a housewife.

Chiron: It can't be denied that the piece didn't paint him as a sweetheart. But public enemy number one? I have better people in mind for that title. He doesn't even make the top hundred.
Staying married is vital though to the preservation of our traditional values as Americans. What you call altering your chemistry, I call "responding to changes in your environment." Kind of an expedited evolutionary tactic.

I take a down the middle 50mg of Paxil CR and I find my libido resting right where it should be to maintain a healthy household. I also find myself reading more novels, writing books, essays and legislation. Never does an unwanted sexual thought enter my mind when the very attractive new hire at my job walk by me. I am 100% focused on advancing the cause of medicine, mathematics, literature, and/or mailing out promotional materials to our clients.

However, I am not so restricted that I can't slowly but surely work my way into a nice rich sense of desire if the subject is broached in a physical way by my wife. Plus, the mechanically inhibited effect of the medicine means a more lengthy engagement pleasing the wife and burning an ample amount of calories.

And this is actually a SIDE EFFECT of a drug designed to keep me happy. Win-Win!
The thing is, modern men and women did not invent cheating. It has been with us for as long as marriage. I don't really believe that men and women cheat more now than they did in say, the 1700's, when marriage among the upper classes was a contract, and a necessity among the lower ones. And there are such a multiplicity of views on cheating in modernity (everything from severe approbation to casual acceptance), that again, I am not sure how much has really changed.

I do think there is now a feminist element to the sexual dynamic generally because of the women's movement, so I do think that how we look at sex is a lot different than it has ever been historically. In that respect, perhaps views of infidelity are changing. I think why we cheat may have changed, but we need to dispense with this fiction that somehow our forefathers were so much better at keeping it in their shorts than us.

As for whether marriage needs fixing, that I have to think about a little more. Marriage has been working pretty well for me, so I'll have to really think on it for a little....
Yablonowitz: It sounds like you're really in a good place--I'm really glad that you have developed such functionality! Nevertheless, I hesitate to agree that general distribution of SSRIs is a good solution to the general malaise we’re experiencing with the institution of marriage.

Liz Emrich: There is an interesting chapter about the origin of marriage and family in The Mirages of Marriage, which I cite above:

"It was not until the Middle Ages that the word ‘love’ (in the sense in which it is used today) became current. Communities developed under the protection of the nobles in their great castles. The lady of the castle assumed the same prestigious position as her husband, the lord. Other people did the work, but the lady of the castle had leisure time to learn to read and practice the arts. Usually she was more educated than her husband, and if she had duties, they were light and principally administrative. Having so much spare time, she often became egocentric, and she began to adorn herself. She also became bored.

"…There is much literature that suggests that sex outside of marriage became the fashion for these ladies. Probably these married women were the aggressors and initiators in these sex activities. The women were bored. They were intellectually and artistically superior to their husbands, and probably resented the inferior, nonproductive position into which they had been forced by a male-dominated society. Extramarital passion was defined by them as 'love.'

"These ladies of the Middle Ages, in their excessive leisure, gathered into groups called Courts of Love, which defined the current rules and traditions of 'love.'"

Lederer and Jackson go on to cite John Langdon-Davies's "A Short History of Women", which includes a code agreed upon by a court of women under the Countess of Champagne in 1174, which includes, among 27 other items, the following tenets: Marriage is no good excuse against loving; Whoever cannot conceal a thing, cannot love; Love that is known publicly rarely lasts; Nothing prevents one woman from being loved by two men, or one man by two women.

"We pronounce and decree by the tenour of these presents, that love cannot extend its powers over two married persons; for lovers must grant everything, mutually and gratuitously the one to the other without being constrained thereunto by any motive of necessity; while the husband and wife are bound by duty to agree the one with the other and deny each other nothing."

The women's movement has certainly changed roles, which has undoubtedly had an effect on the marriage relationship. Both the women's movement and the sexual revolution have changed social views on sex, which have also altered the marriage relationship. The general flexibility allowed to both genders in modern society has made it more difficult to maintain the bonds without extreme commitment on the part of its participants. Before this, the rigid structure of society managed to keep in place even those who were not as committed to their marriage simply because divorce was not a suitable option.

I wouldn't say our forefathers were better at keeping it in their shorts--they had a lot more to lose if it was discovered that they did not. This is a very powerful deterrent; not necessarily one that entirely prevented cheating, but certainly one that prevented them from proceeding without extreme caution.
AV -- it's interesting that you bring up the Courtly Love phenomenon of the 12th and 13th centuries. It was a counterpoint to the emphasis on chivalric codes that were being promoted by William Marshall and others. (And which incidentally, were observed more in the breach than adherence.) Courtly love had a certain showmanship to it -- the point was not to necessarily seriously entice a married woman to have a sexual affair with a youn man, but to provide some sort of unobtainable love object to which the knights and other men were supposed to aspire. Certainly some of these relationships did indeed become sexual, but a good many did not.

It was, as you correctly point out, the first time that the notion of romantic love even enters the equation for women or men in public relationships. Love before that time was something illicit and inconvenient at best, something that had no place in a public relationship, much less a marriage. Indeed it would be several centuries more (right up until the 20th century) that the notion that one should marry for love would be considered the norm or desirable. Marriage for centuries has been an economic arrangement, not an emotional one.
You and your husband are different in some ways that sound similar to the ways my wife and I are different. I may be more like you; my wife, more like your husband. I haven't been unfaithful to my wife, but I've thought about it some. We've been married a long time.

I have been depressed recently, and some people have suggested I take SSRIs. But I've done that before, and Yablonowitz reminds me why I don't want to do that again. If he is in "a good place", then I want no part of it.

The idea that women, generally, look for supplements while men, generally, look for replacements does not resonate with me. If I cheated (damn, I sound like OJ!), then it would definitely not be to find a replacement. People do whatever they do for their own reasons, and not because they are women or because they are men.

This is an incisive analysis, though, AV Flox.

For reference, I posted something about this topic recently, here: http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=17963
Is Infidelity A Gender Issue?

First things first: outstanding work, AV. This is the reward which quells my aggravation, and urge to retaliate, at my former wife's derisive observation, "You're on the computer AGAIN?" It's like shopping, which I'd always thought was a 'chick' thing until I found myself single parenting a four year old boy, you have to spend a lot of time in the stores if you want to find real value. I regularly hear these comments because we have been living together for the past five years, following nine years' divorced, three separated, twenty married, but that's a story for another day.

We married because she was pregnant. We, I can speak only for myself, I was not in love. I thought/felt that I was but, at nineteen, had no idea what love was, or what would be demanded in exchange for the ecstasy. When I read "On Love" in The Prophet, "...Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.", I thought what's this? Love doesn't wound, it makes all the wounds okay. I was, from the first, incredulous that we were actually together, I mean, with that body and personality she could have had anybody. Why me? (I learned later that she liked my shoulders.)

I admit that I cheated on my wife, early. Sister Morphine. As long as I could afford to maintain my mistress and my wife and three children (which I did, until October '87 [damn the market]) there was no apparent problem. Actually, she seemed to unknowingly appreciate it, as Yablonowitz referenced, unless I happened to 'drift off' during foreplay. Then, unsatisfied, she began competing with my mistress for the things acquired with $. There was never enough.
Love gets you thru times of no $ better than $ gets you thru times of no love.

It took a long while before I could comprehend that my 'affair' was effectively no different than her relationship with... what do I say?...her boyfriend?...paramour?...companion?...NO!, the dirty bastard who is so low that he f--ks another man's woman. I would never do that, neither would any of my friends. Today I can recognize that I saw it as a property issue, this guy was a horse thief and needs to be taught a lesson. This fellow was an iron worker, drinker, and happy to respond to my dubious talent for provoking the other guy to throw the first punch. It required a handful of fights, three arrests, and two trials to convince me that my Neanderthal 'pummel him and drag her home by the hair' ethic is no longer embraced by contemporary society.

Which brings me to the notion that infidelity may be a gender issue, or an emotional issue, or an economic, social, or medical issue. It often precipitates legal issues. The judge at my second assault trial ("You got away with it this time, Mr. D-, but you don't ever want to be in front of me again."), once retired from the bench refused to practice any type of matrimonial law, "It is the only legal contract which is assumed to be not necessarily binding.".

I assert that infidelity is a survival issue, at least that's what I get from reading the book of the Exodus. A captive nation was seeking freedom, struggling to be free, and amid extreme duress was given certain basic principles which would ensure social order and promote the highest personal development (see Emmet Fox, The Ten Commandments). When I refuse to honor a promise to which I have freely committed, who could trust me? How could a productive partnership, of any nature, be sustained? When many people act in this manner, upon what foundation is the future established?

Is perpetual monogamy "natural"? I dunno, wild geese do it. Is it almost impossibly difficult? No sh*t! A priest once confided to me that he believed that marriage is "... a much more difficult calling than being a priest. That is why Christ performed his first public miracle at a wedding and why the Church has made it a sacrament. For the ordinary person it is just too difficult, without special grace."

Today, I try to practice fidelity, in ALL things. Try to practice. Before I moved in with my youngest (he's doing his own shopping now) and his Mom I was living on a sailboat, feeling like Huck Finn, free to do whatever whenever with whomever. This evening I'll have the opportunity, once again, to be enchanted by my granddaughter's laughter. PRICELESS.

Fidelity, as love, is worth what it costs.
Liz Emrich: I cannot help but wonder whether the institution began to disintegrate when it stopped being viewed as an economic and social arrangement and became subject to emotion and whim. If you think about it, making a decision when we are in love (i.e., subject to the power of our neurotransmitters) is a lot like making a decision while under the influence.

It makes me think of a quote by Zsa Zsa Gabor: "Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do." She's been married nine times--I can't decide if that makes her an expert or disqualifies her completely.

Rich Banks: I agree that people choose to have extramarital affairs for their own reasons and that there is no 100 percent true statement to explain what each gender is looking for. All we can do is look to the experience of those in the field and take into account their findings.

I'm glad we have connected, Rich. I look forward to reading your own thoughts on the matter and getting to know you better.

Old Gold: Thank you for sharing your personal experience here. This is my first posting at OpenSalon and already it has proven its worth as a place to interact with other giving minds.

I hear the wild geese argument all the time. The problem is that we're not wild geese. But you do raise valid questions: When I refuse to honor a promise to which I have freely committed, who could trust me? The problem is that this promise is eternal and assumes nothing will ever change. But the system and the people within it is always changing. The promise, therefore, should not be given once, but continuously. Only if we are realistic about our commitments will we be able to build a solid foundation for the future.

Having said that, I think the Church is powerful in aiding the survival of the institution as it stands because of the constraints that it applies to its flock. Faith--and fear--can act as a flying buttress the way society's rigid norms once did.

I love what the priest said to you about marriage being more difficult than chastity. I had never thought about it like that. And your closing line: "Fidelity, as love, is worth what it costs." is a sentiment I'll not soon forget.