Sandra Tsing Loh's Atlantic Piece
Sandra is getting divorced, and writes about it. Read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt with her final thoughts on marriage:
So, herewith, some modest proposals. Clearly, research shows that what's best for children is domestic stability and not having to bond with, and to be left by, ever new stepparent figures. Less important is whether or not their overworked parents are logging "date night" (or feeling the magic). So why don't we accept marriage as a splitting-the-mortgage arrangement? As Fisher suggests, rekindling the romance is, for many of us, biologically unnatural, particularly after the kids come. (Says another friend of mine, about his wife of 23 years: "My heart doesn't lift when she walks in the room. It sinks, slightly.") If high-revving women are sexually frustrated, let them have some sort of French arrangement where they have two men, the postfeminist model dad building shelves, cooking bouillabaise, and ignoring them in the home, and the occasional fun-loving boyfriend the kids never see. Alternately, if both spouses find life already rather exhausting, never mind chasing around for sex. Long-married husbands and wives should pleasantly agree to be friends, to set the bedroom aglow at night by the mute opening of separate laptops and just be done with it. More than anything, aside from providing insulation from the world at large, that kind of arrangement could be the perfect way to be left alone.As far as the children are concerned, how about the tribal approach (a natural, according to both primate and human evolution)? Let children between the ages of 1 and 5 be raised in a household of mothers and their female kin. Let the men/husbands/boyfriends come in once or twice a week to build shelves, prepare that bouillabaisse, or provide sex.
Or best of all, after the breast-feeding and toddler years are through, let those nurturing superdads be the custodial parents! Let the Type A moms obsessively work, write checks, and forget to feed the dog. Let the dads then, if they wish, kick out those sloppy working mothers and run effective households, hiring the appropriate staff, if need be. To a certain extent, men today may have more clarity about what it takes to raise children in the modern age. They don't, for instance, have today's working mother's ambivalence and emotional stickiness.
In any case, here's my final piece of advice: avoid marriage--or you too may suffer the emotional pain, the humiliation, and the logistical difficulty, not to mention the expense, of breaking up a long-term union at midlife for something as demonstrably fleeting as love.
Or, as I am so fond of saying, Emotion is not a sound basis for a relationship.
The only way a marriage lasts is if the people getting married are doing so because they have a plan for a future together that involves something other than emotional attachment.
Getting married and having kids because "It seemed like a good idea at the time" or "because it's what people do" is precisely the Wrong Thing. It will only end in madness and tears.
brian at June 18, 2009 7:55 AM
"Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project -"
Um, yeah well, there's a problem. What is your basis for doing this marriage thing? Is that other person important to you, or is it all these trappings that are important. Marriages that last a long time, no matter how irrascible the partners, have to do with that other person being important, EVEN in friendship. She talks well of platonic friendship and I call BULL on that. If you are going along well and are friends than what reason is there to split up the band?
I wouldn't have split everyting apart if my ex had at least been friendly, rather than a mooching roomate that couldn't stand to be in the same room with me. She wanted my money, not my existance, and she made VERY sure I knew that.
When you look at the root cause of this sort of thing, I think it's just that expectation doesn't match reality, because people EXPECT too much, AND different things. I think the author would agree with that... BUT, I don't necessarily agree that it means that marriage itself is a bad idea. Maybe it's too long term. Loh says she had 20 good years. Maybe that's the length.
But to say I don't have the energy to continue to try and be with the original reason for the marriage? How's that make the ex feel? Taken advantage of?
I dunno. The answer seems uglier than the question.
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2009 8:23 AM
I thought that piece was really repugnant. Everything I hate about boomers.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at June 18, 2009 8:56 AM
I read the whole piece, and more than anything, it just made me dislike the author (and her friends).
ahw at June 18, 2009 9:03 AM
Beyond the weak thesis (Marriage is not for everyone!), I wonder what advice you would have given this woman, had she asked. She made the ill-advised choice to have kids, and then dissolved the union that supports those kids because, frankly, it was boring. In the universe that revolves around her, she wants a career, trophy children, and a hot sex life, and that tired old husband was just getting in the way.
Don't have kids if you value the flush of new romance. Making one choice obliterates an infinite number of others, but somehow people manage to do it.
There's a woman who works down the hall from me, with whom I could imagine a few blissful weeks of getting-to-know-you sex. Good times. But I will acknowledge that sacrifice in favor of years of family life with my wife and our future children. I have looked at my wants and needs, and made my choice. What Ms. Loh wants is the ability to change her mind whenever she wants.
Josh at June 18, 2009 9:07 AM
The common death knell for many relationships seems to echo with the words: "Then we got married and had kids."
Pirate Jo at June 18, 2009 9:26 AM
The couples I know who actually planned it that way are still happily married and raising their well-adjusted brood.
The couples I know who got married to "take the relationship to the next level" or "because it's time"; not so much. Some have divorced, some are slogging it out in misery.
And the ones who, once married for one of those reasons that went and had kids "because it's what was expected", or "to get my mother off my case"? Divorced and miserable with fucked-up kids.
Doing something doesn't matter nearly as much as the reason behind doing it.
You can't do something half-assed and expect it to work out well.
brian at June 18, 2009 9:38 AM
I found a strange contradiction which I have noticed is common with some women. Right in the begining of her article, Sandra says that she doesn't enjoy men. I will interpret that to mean that she has no sexual interest in them. Later on she implies that open marriages are not an option either, in her opinion. So logically, if she only wants a platonic relationship with someone, what difference does it make if that someone is male or female? And has she never 'enjoyed' men, or is she just sick and tired of the one she's had for 20 years?
This puritanical approach to marriage makes me think that Sandra and her cronies are more anatomically similar to Ken & Barbie than real people.
Chrissy at June 18, 2009 9:41 AM
I think it's very hard to sustain a long term relationship in a society that expects you to be "in love" every second of every day, and if you're not, then you need to rekindle that passion--somewhere else, if need be. I slightly know Sandra, and I think this is sad.
I've been married for 25 years, and while I can't pretend that every moment is bliss, I like my husband. I like hanging around with him. He's the only person I'll ever drive cross-country with. My heart doesn't skip a beat everytime I see him, but when he's not around, there's something missing.
My advice--use your heart and your head in equal measure, don't be too picky, think more in terms of "us" than of yourself or of your partner. And don't pass up a chance to have sex.
KateC at June 18, 2009 9:58 AM
Marriage is Work.
Marriage is a Job.
And if you decide that you want to be married, raise kids, and have it work, it is the most important job you will have in your life. Everything else should take a backseat to your marriage.
The only "parenting expert" I can stand to read is John Rosemond. Because he struck me in the first article I ever read, talking about how a marriage-centered family works better than a child-centered family. Because when the marriage is numero uno, the parents take care of each other. And happy parents = happy kids.
Today's world seems to focus on child-centered marriages, which is exactly what Sandra seems to have had. Her life revolved around being a mother, not a wife. And so she didn't take care of what she had, and so it dissolved. Note (if you read the full article) the order of this sentence: "Sobered by this failure as a mother—which is to say, my failure as a wife—I’ve since begun...". It should be the other way around.
She states quite openly that: "I did not have the strength to “work on” falling in love again in my marriage. And as Laura Kipnis railed in Against Love, and as everyone knows, Good relationships take work." Did you think on that before the affair? On those mornings that you were at home (she's a writer, works at home), and typing away, did it ever occur to you to take an hour or so off and go have lunch with your husband, just for fun? Did you call him, just to ask how he was doing? Or was it just too much work?
Your career comes a distant third in your life, if you decide to get married and have kids. And it looks like, in the end, Sandra didn't want the kids or the marriage. Her whole article seems to be celebrating the fact that she can be an adult now that she's divorced... almost like now she doesn't have to play Mommy the whole time.
She openly scoffs at "date nights" with your hubby, as if that's just some touchy-feely nonsense. But she doesn't say she ever tried it. Never underestimate the value of a good babysitter! I wonder if she ever took a day off to send the kids off to school, then cuddle under the sheets with the husband.
My hubby & I don't have kids. We're waiting until we're absolutely sure we're ready. But even now, we discuss doing things like that, prioritizing our marriage so that we can raise happy, healthy kids while still remembering to take care of each other.
Marriage is Work. And in the end, Miss Sandra decided to do a half-assed job.
cornerdemon at June 18, 2009 10:00 AM
I thought that piece was really repugnant. Everything I hate about boomers. (crid)
Yep.
Uh huh. Most def. Whoa! When I talk about the contradictions in some women, people here go ape shit. But you're surely right, here. We're warm bedfellows on this one.The alternative arrangements Tsing Loh mentions have one thing in common. Women fucking several men, while the husband serves. Apparently, she often needs a husband to build shelves.
But what are we to expect? Women have been taught a breathtaking selfishness in school, university, and by their girl power friends. Lots of women think that anything is justified, if it leads to a female orgasm. Ms. Tsing Loh appears to be one of them.
Jeff at June 18, 2009 10:27 AM
"think more in terms of "us" than of yourself or of your partner." KateC
This seems to be a root cause... and what many have a problem with. Interestingly I found thinking of Fisher's work as quoted by Loh led to a curious conclusion about the 4 types of people:
"The Explorer—the libidinous, creative adventurer who acts “on the spur of the moment.” Operative neurochemical: dopamine.
The Builder—the much calmer person who has “traditional values.” The Builder also “would rather have loyal friends than interesting friends,” enjoys routines, and places a high priority on taking care of his or her possessions. Operative neurotransmitter: serotonin.
The Director—the “analytical and logical” thinker who enjoys a good argument. The Director wants to discover all the features of his or her new camera or computer. Operative hormone: testosterone.
The Negotiator—the touchy-feely communicator who imagines “both wonderful and horrible things happening” to him- or herself. Operative hormone: estrogen, then oxytocin." Loh, exerpt from Fisher.
If you are quoting all those, what you are talking about is what an individual is in themselves, NOT about how that person bridges themselves to a partner. That seems important to me, because it is in that bridge that marriage exists. The info is only part of the story. Without giving voice to the otherness of others, no wonder you can't feel the need to make peace with living with them. Also seems like there is a lot of intimate dysfunction... Who is cutting who off there?
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2009 10:32 AM
Everyone is different. Marriage is perfect for some, not for others.
But reading this made me want to put a bullet though my brain. Like, wow. All relationships end painfully, embarrassingly and leave you bankrupt. Her angle was bad. Maybe if her thesis was "how to make marriage behave more organically". To view marriage differently through your lifetime and to have it satisfy you differently.
Love might be fleeting and in some cases irreparably extinguished. But she doesn't even act like she gives a shit about her ex. Like he was a gangrenous arm that needed sawing off.
I have an amazing urge to make out with D right now and wash this from my brain.
Gretchen at June 18, 2009 11:12 AM
She doesn't enjoy men (and from the pic, the feeling's probably mutual), but decided to bang a guy that wasn't her spouse.
Why wail about the fate of her kids AFTER the affair?
God, I hate people like her. We are all dumber for having read her absurd tale.
Ugh.
Pete the Streak at June 18, 2009 11:42 AM
"Let the men/husbands/boyfriends come in once or twice a week to build shelves, prepare that bouillabaisse, or provide sex."
Ahh, that good ol' Matriarchal Utopia idea. Why, yes that like would totally motivate me to be a good sperm donor/slave.
I think Chrissy is on to something there about her romance interest given an article she wrote 2 years ago: "She's just not that into you"
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/loh-libido
with the sub header: "Women prefer food to sex with their husbands—and that’s OK."
Forgive me if I don't have any sympathy for her given her actions nor take her advice as pure drivel trying to justify said cheating etc..
Sio at June 18, 2009 11:59 AM
"Women prefer food to sex with their husbands—and that’s OK." - sio
It IS ok if a woman prefers food over sex, just not sex with her husband if they both enjoyed it at the beginning and had agreed it was important to both of them.
If two people want a relationship where they get off eating instead of...getting off...it's cool. It's this attitude that men are here to assemble things, make some money and that is it.
She doesn't seem to be a person that gets satisfaction out of being in a great partnership - though she speculates that it's not a bad thing.
This Sandra woman just shouldn't have gotten married. It isn't for her. I can't fucking stand olives. They make me want to vomit. I, therefore, won't review various recipes for tapenades - which are meant to be piled onto crusty slices of fresh ciabatta bread. I'm probably not a good person to give that opinion.
Though, I don't disagree with her sentiment that we should raise children in village-like groups, with friends, mothers, sisters and aunts all chipping in and raising the children as a joint effort. But there's a place for dads, brothers, and uncles, too.
Gretchen at June 18, 2009 12:12 PM
Ugh. I don't like DH all the time. Or even always love him. Sometimes the sight of him makes my heart skip, sometimes it drops. That's life. It's cyclical. And marriage is (should be) trading the new pounding heartbeat infatuation for the man who can just know when to pop out the emergency wine and chocolate bar he hides for you, just by the look on your face when he walks in the door.
momof4 at June 18, 2009 12:21 PM
So THESE are the women that Jeff, brian and others talk about. This article and its female (?) charactes are revolting. I'm thinking along the same lines as Gretchen...I'm leaving work early for some hot afternoon sex with my much appreciated husband to get this trash outta my head. Yuck.
moreta at June 18, 2009 12:34 PM
Leaving Las Vegas style: Is she bitter because she just got divorced, or did she get divorced because she's bitter?
Pirate Jo at June 18, 2009 12:41 PM
I wish my BF were my daughters' father. All I have to do is look at his picture and I get a rush. Damn near every time. (He likes me, too.) How long will it last? Who the hell knows. I will do everything in my power to make it last. But in my estimation, it's not so much work as it is want. I want the man. He wants me. We both make it work. All the time? Never happen. As often as possible? Yeah, we can do that.
Flynne at June 18, 2009 1:23 PM
What a self-absorbed idiot.
I hadn't gotten halfway through the article before I was tired of the self-centered dribble about the sacrifices she's made, the work she'll do, the way she feels.
I had to stop reading. I was drowning in her self-pity.
I'll try to finish the article later to see if she ever takes responsibility for her own infidelity. But I'm not counting on it.
Conan the Grammarian at June 18, 2009 1:36 PM
I always enjoyed Sandra Tsing Loh's writing, until I read this piece. My guess is that she'll regret writing it. She comes across as incredibly selfish, myopic, and disgustingly passive about her role in belittling and destroying her own marriage. In other words, perfect fodder for people looking to criticize modern women. All I can say is that while she might represent a certain group of women - just like "Ian" in her story might represent a certain group of men - that doesn't mean that all women treat their partnerships so disrespectfully, any more than it means all men are passive-aggressive freeloaders.
CB at June 18, 2009 1:36 PM
...trading the new pounding heartbeat infatuation for the man who can just know when to pop out the emergency wine and chocolate bar he hides for you, just by the look on your face when he walks in the door.
I agree, but that takes work on both sides. I see the women in this article feeling neglected and not really knowing what to do about it. If I hadn't had sex in a couple of years, and my husband was always calling me fat,a bad mother, and bad wife (not that we have kids), I would be contemplating divorce as well. The key is two people trying to make it work and riding out the bad times.
I don't have mad passion for my husband all the time, and frankly at times he drives me bat shit crazy, but he is also the one person who will always tell me the truth, and the one person who can look at me and see if I've had a bad day. I can't see throwing that away for the hope of something better later.
-Julie
Julie at June 18, 2009 1:46 PM
heh, silver lining is that article may be causing some serious fooling around, and hey, ain't nothing wrong with that... :shrug:
as for the guys that come in weekly to build shelves, cook, and service them, my question would be: what makes her believe that any guy is interested in that arrangement? Is there a value there? Esp. since it sounds like he mightn't actually have any fun? Fundamentally, what is she going to teach Sons about this arrangement? Does she think the slavery is their best outcome? Or is it a pay proposition, where you pay for those numerous services?
I have to wonder if all this is just nice writing that she doesn't actually subscribe to herself... Like waxing lyrically about how you like a fine merlot, when you actually can't stand wine. If you are writing for an audience, perhaps you give them what they might like to hear. Like it's OK to be this way.
The thing she mentioned about the father she hated? What does she think her daughters will think of her when they are adults?
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2009 1:51 PM
What I've learned from this is that bouillabaisse is vitally important to a happy marriage.
MonicaP at June 18, 2009 2:13 PM
> My advice--use your heart and your
> head in equal measure, don't be too
> picky, think more in terms of "us"
> than of yourself or of your partner.
My marriage was much shorter than you, but that sounds like solid advice.
> Your career comes a distant
> third in your life, if you
> decide to get married
> and have kids.
For men especially, I'm not so sure. Of course they have to love their kids and their wives, but resources are an important part of the deal. Men don't have the luxury of distance from economics.
> She doesn't enjoy men (and from
> the pic, the feeling's
> probably mutual)
Naw, she's famously attractive. I don't know anything about her husband or anyone else in her life, but I doubt very seriously that allure is the problem.
> I always enjoyed Sandra Tsing
> Loh's writing, until I read
> this piece.
I was always at least patient with it, if not charmed. She greatly amuses many in her (our) generational/economic cohort in Los Angeles. She's bright and people like her, and it's sad (and I mean that: saddening, unpleasant) to see this much cork and clay within her heart. Gretchen's a generation younger but the sort who, with familiarity, might be expected to admire Loh; go back and read the 11:12am comment.
(Confession: I only read enough of the piece to get pissed off before posting the earlier comment; it didn't take long.)
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 18, 2009 2:40 PM
“husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work.”
*Wow, that didn’t take long. Right off the bat with a failure to appreciate husband.
“I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued.”
*I love the passive voice here. Not "I cheated on my husband." Its "my monogamy went missing." Really, on its own. Its somwhere in the drier, I think. Next to a pair of unmatched socks.
“my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance.”
*What she calls ‘staggering,’ happy couples call ‘thoughtfulness.’ And blaming motherhood? Crass and lazy.
*Just couldn't finish the rest in detail. Devolves into a bunch of fat old yentas getting drunk and complaining. Like their husbands, I wouldn't have sex with them either.
snakeman99 at June 18, 2009 3:43 PM
So I'm supposed to take advice on marriage from someone who cheated on her husband rather than dealing with her issues with him in a mature way? Someone with kids? I don't think she's the devil incarnate, but I do think that *she's* the primary reason why *her* marriage didn't work out, and she's trying to expiate her guilt by spinning tales about communal living and dutiful handymen guys. The part where she talks about how she couldn't bear to hire a nanny or a housekeeper is especially eye-roll worthy -- essentially, she took this "crushing" load on herself, and now is using it as an excuse.
Yes, marriage is tough at times. Yes, it's not for everyone. But STL isn't a good person to make that argument. (STL's friend Rachel, mentioned in the article, might be. She's working a demanding job so that her family will have benefits while her husband freelances, and her husband is apparently highly critical and refuses to have sex with her. Guess she's too overworked to write an article, though...)
marion at June 18, 2009 5:44 PM
Funny. This gal is the sort of person who never bothers to let their spouse know that fucking other people is now on the marital menu. They just go do it. And then they still act as though their lied to spouse is to blame for them fucking other people.
/sarcasm/ Strangely, at no point did the cheater stop the marriage to announce to their unknowing spouse that due to some alleged failing of said spouse, the cheater now has license to cheat. But that is usually the absurd reason used: the cheated upon party "failed" in some way at the marriage, and therefore the cheater must now get naked with other people. =sigh= Must, you know. Must.
Can you imagine if people employed this rationalization in an honest way, by telling their spouse *before* they banged someone else? How would that conversation go?
"What?! You didn't [do the dishes/empathize enough/employ a favored but unmentioned sex position/etc.]!? That is it! Monogamy is *off* the table now! I now get to bang your cousin's hot friend who hit on me last week. I'm calling that hottie right now, in fact."
Nope. Never happens that way. I wonder why...?
Instead you get post hoc rationalizations and explanations, most of which avoid responsibility. This gal seems a classic case of that.
Spartee at June 18, 2009 6:50 PM
The phrase "cork and clay" was probably harsh.
But sheesh.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 18, 2009 7:11 PM
What disturbs me almost as much as Loh's narcissistic idiocy is that some editor actually passed it for publication.
Acksiom at June 18, 2009 7:28 PM
The thing is, I just don't buy it. Loh either made up enormous details about her friends and their marriages, or she just set them all up for divorce. The alleged use of pseudonyms is hardly enough when you're spilling the secrets of people who probably read your work. Also, she's delusional about the kids being just dandy. That doesn't happen in even the most amicable divorces and this one doesn't appear to be that. I will grant her that being married to a man who's on the road 20 weeks a year can't be easy, but being cheated on by the mother of your children is probably no walk in the park.
NotMarriedAnymore at June 18, 2009 8:40 PM
> some editor actually passed
> it for publication.
...and...
> use of pseudonyms is hardly enough
> when you're spilling the secrets
> of people who probably read your
> work.
In The Atlantic. It's just hard to think of a metaphor.... There is no metaphor. Imagine if all your friends –who'd know darned well that you were close to TSL, as hers is the kind of name that people tend to drop– had read about your cold, sexless marriage in The Atlantic. I can imagine people spending the rest of their lives making offhand-seeming comments to try to convince people that she was talking about someone else. 'Yeah, sure, buddy....'
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 18, 2009 10:19 PM
Regrettably, I can offer only know/see/hear-nothing Druids and pure tonal triads.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at June 19, 2009 12:46 AM
Seems she's surrounded herself with friends who would rather kiss her ass and even reinforce her thinking by torpedoing their own marriages. Pity she doesn't have any honest friends who would rather tell her the truth with a firm and hearty STFU.
Either that or I'm just feeling uncharitable about not getting the last 15 minutes of my life back after reading this.
juliana at June 19, 2009 7:08 AM
> I can offer only know/see/hear-
> nothing Druids
What... You think you're special, buddy? We live in Los Angeles! Everybody knows people like that.
> and pure tonal triads.
Oh yeah? Well, we'd like to hear you sing one! On your own... No help from your hoodied friends.
> or I'm just feeling uncharitable
Me too. Y'know, as a figure of public interest, Loh's got nowhere left to go after this. A shameless recitation of mundane failed romance –failed romance involving children– is not the career peak we might have expected from this woman in her late 40s.
Y'know, I don't move in her circles. The odds against me and Loh sharing even a large lunch table someday were –given the most generous reading of the Kevin Bacon Probability Matrix– never less than 2,212 to 1. So I have no reason to take it personally. But she had no reason to put it in the Atlantic, either.
A few years ago Loh and Joe Frank, LA's most talented radio performer, did an evening of comedy where they made fun of a local radio station. I ran into some friends that night, a happily married couple from the Valley, a successful but not especially verbal media couple. Sitting next to them during the show, and watching their eyes, it was apparent that Loh meant something special to them.
Even if she didn't mean the same thing to me, I made it a point to read and listen to her stuff when it happened across it. I liked her if only for the warmth that she seemed to represent in the hearts of people I like. Loh's descriptions of her marriage and friendships betrayed no arrogance or delicacy. As a comfortably bitter bachelor m'self, I at least liked to think she was indicative of a strength present in the lives of my friends.
Now I'm hoping she isn't.
If Robin Abcarian had written that piece, there'd be neither surprise nor disappointment.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 19, 2009 8:28 AM
Since Amy has wimped out of the earlier thread, I'll post great tune #4 right here. (As always, ignore the video; this is all about the melodies.)
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 19, 2009 8:49 AM
Cridmiester, I like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__N17g1t6fs
Flynne at June 19, 2009 9:44 AM
"Funny. This gal is the sort of person who never bothers to let their spouse know that fucking other people is now on the marital menu. They just go do it. And then they still act as though their lied to spouse is to blame for them fucking other people.
/sarcasm/ Strangely, at no point did the cheater stop the marriage to announce to their unknowing spouse that due to some alleged failing of said spouse, the cheater now has license to cheat. But that is usually the absurd reason used: the cheated upon party "failed" in some way at the marriage, and therefore the cheater must now get naked with other people. =sigh= Must, you know. Must.
Can you imagine if people employed this rationalization in an honest way, by telling their spouse *before* they banged someone else? How would that conversation go?
"What?! You didn't [do the dishes/empathize enough/employ a favored but unmentioned sex position/etc.]!? That is it! Monogamy is *off* the table now! I now get to bang your cousin's hot friend who hit on me last week. I'm calling that hottie right now, in fact."
Nope. Never happens that way. I wonder why...?
Instead you get post hoc rationalizations and explanations, most of which avoid responsibility. This gal seems a classic case of that."
I may be reading this wrong but I get the feeling that people think that marital infidelity is something new under the sun, (at least for women). It has been going on for millennia and predates the modern human. Men and women are biologically programmed to cheat and genetic studies prove it. The main difference as I see it is that in the past people recognized that marriage was not always a relationship that provided everything for everybody and they worked around it. Most people had to stay married because their frail financial security depended on it (at least until one of the partners died which happened with alarming frequency to people in their 40's and even much younger in historical times) Now people have the financial security to get out of it. Marriage provides a very good venue to raise children provided that one of the parents does not have serious issues that prevent them from being a good parent. After the kids are grown who cares? The big mistake this poor writer made was not having her kids earlier in life so that they were not out of the house by the time her marriage expired. As far as the other woman I can't imagine anything less sexually appealing than an obsessive compulsive beta male who spent his time organizing the kitchen, making bouillabaisse all day and taking me to task for chores that he should have done himself if he wanted them done right. I'm with the person who called him a second wife. :-) Before you call me a bitter harpy, I have been married for 28 years. (First marriage for both of us) It does not take work to stay married. It takes work and money to do the paperwork to get divorced and it would have to be a pretty darn good reason before I was willing to do that paperwork. :-) Isabel
Isabel1130 at June 19, 2009 9:49 AM
Crid - Shitty morning, this delightful tune (and a chocolate chip cookie. Hooray for emotional eating!) is improving my mood...gracias :-)
I just posted some music on my blog which you might like. Electronica. Mostly down-tempo chill.
Final note on this piece: I don't hate STL. I thought the piece was nicely written, but I couldn't help thinking that despite her incredible attempt at pure honesty she is somehow in denial. Or not really understanding herself.
Her marriage didn't fail because he traveled too much and she didn't appreciate him; or because she is too miserable to see that "date night" is actually code for "taking time to give a hoot about your husband" which is theoretically not supposed to be WORK...it failed b/c she didn't give a fuck. Seemingly, she never did. She isn't jaded; she is selfish. She isn't insightful and her powers of observation actually suck despite the fact the suckiness is hidden between eloquent prose.
She is just a women who lost the passion and was counting on the passion to stay constant. And when it left she kinda shrugged her shoulder and went "Meh!".
That's an attitude a person has all along, but it's buried down deep when the going is good. When the going gets less sexy and life is more busy you gotta realize that you made a commitment and figure out a game plan on how to maintain the relationship. It's like letting your car coast down a hill and it's fun and you don't have to do a thing; when the road flattens you either apply some gas to keep moving or eventually you'll stop. STL secretly never wanted to even be in the driver's seat. But she figured it out after two kids...
I stand by my original sentiment that she just might not be the marryin' type.
Gretchen at June 19, 2009 10:00 AM
just checking, but isn't bouillabaisse...
soup?
SwissArmyD at June 19, 2009 10:12 AM
If I had to live with my female kin and raise children I would shoot myself. Seriously?? How would that work? My sister or I would surely kill my mother and then each other. Then who would raise the children? Not the fathers because they can only build shelves and make revolting fish soup.
Fink-Nottle at June 19, 2009 11:47 AM
"I may be reading this wrong but I get the feeling that people think that marital infidelity is something new under the sun, (at least for women)."
You are reading it wrong. People are hardly shocked that men and women are unfaithful.
What is annoying (but again, no shocking) is when people claim they cheated because the other party didn't love them enough, or whatever.
In short, they address their partner's alleged failing as a spouse by secretly rubbing their naughty bits on someone else, and then blame the spouse who was not clued in that this was an option on the marriage.
Spartee at June 19, 2009 12:48 PM
Just name the key, Crid baby, and prepare to witness the power of my awesome solfege skillz!
Paul Hrissikopoulos at June 19, 2009 1:25 PM
> I like this one:
Never heard that singer before. I think she has pitch issues, but I'm not a singers guy. I've heard the tune a couple times, but it was a fellow singing.
Wiki says Orzabal wrote it! Orzabal's one of the McCartney clones born too late to mix it up with Big Mac in the Top Ten. (Here's another.) But he's a quiet little genius. A bunch of those TFF melodies were really golden, but nowadays people just think of him as an 80's mullet. In the rap era, it's not the kind of music that means as much to hoards of people... In 1972 or whenever, Mad World would have been the theme to high school proms.
It's like...
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 19, 2009 1:46 PM
It's like something this guy said in the 80's, when he was put in charge of CBS News. Even then it was obvious that the glory days were over. CNN and cable were starting to kick ass. The internet wasn't here but everybody knew something great was coming. A business writer asked Stringer how it felt to be given one of broadcasting's dream jobs just when the decadent phase for the enterprise had so clearly begun, and his answer has come to mind often: "You don't get to pick the decade".
(That's a nice bookend to the more famous sentiment Roosevelt once sent in a wartime telegram to Winston Churchill: "It's fun to be in the same decade as you.")
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 19, 2009 1:47 PM
"What is annoying (but again, no shocking) is when people claim they cheated because the other party didn't love them enough, or whatever.
In short, they address their partner's alleged failing as a spouse by secretly rubbing their naughty bits on someone else, and then blame the spouse who was not clued in that this was an option on the marriage. "
I didn't get that out of it. I think her marriage ended because she was honest enough to admit in counseling that not only had she cheated but she would do it again as she had no ability to re-develop romantic affections for her husband that just were not there any more. In the old days people would have said, "let's stay married for the kids and then when they are grown we can see about going our seperate ways since we are capeable of remaining rational good parents in spite of the fact the the romance and sex is gone" I think she could have done this but her husband could not. He wanted the whole thing or nothing. That is what I got out of it. I kind of feel sorry for her, because I think a middle ground used to exist that does not seem to be an option anymore. Isabel
Isabel1130 at June 19, 2009 2:12 PM
Tune #5, the last of 'em. It's not very great, but I heard it on the internet radio station when falling asleep one night and thought "what the fuck was that?" It's mostly about the wonderful title.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 19, 2009 2:15 PM
Worse still, sometimes they take their secretly-rubbed naughty bits home and rub them on their spouse in an act of non-consensual three-way sex. What's that word for sex without informed consent?
Randomizer at July 2, 2009 10:17 AM
About 6 million guys and girls exist on the planet, 75 percent are aware of jesus. One man preaching in only one country, started that, through word of mouth. Bloggers of today have the world wide web with which to reach all of those people, all this at your fingertips, you can change anything, go for it bad boys!!!!!!
Girl in Lacey Tights at June 3, 2010 9:49 PM
Leave a comment