I have said that my e-mails with Wife's friend D have lately been covering much of the same territory as my posts here, and they are no easier to write. So it occurred to me (a little belatedly) that I could reprint selections from these e-mails here; it would keep my blog up to date on what is going on with me, without costing me as much effort as it would take to come up with something new.
For these to make sense, though, I have to do a little editing, because we end up pursuing topics like threads. So any coherent post here -- i.e., one about a single topic -- will have to be stitched together out of a paragraph here and another there. I'll try it here and see how it works.
This first one takes its start from a couple of e-mails I already posted here, so I won't reprise them. But you can begin with the remarks I made there about Orson Scott Card, and with D's reply about her sister's Frequent Flyer Miles. To make the alternation between us clearer, I have put my words in green and hers in blue.
Hosea: Thank you for telling me about the frequent flyer miles. Of course I will let [Wife] tell me about this in her own time. Do you have any sense from her if there is a particular reason she hasn't mentioned it yet? Is she afraid I'll be angry, yell, stomp around? Can she just not figure out how to get the topic started? Or is it something as simple as that we don't have a lot of time together in the evenings before she falls asleep?
D: You have analytically presented all of the justifications [Wife] uses to explain why she has not discussed her trip to [the Old Country] with you. I'm not sure how to respond to such Olympian emotional distance, but you may be dissembling here...and I'm not sure why. In the valley, it strikes me that that she may have every reason to believe that you would react with anger; only someone who truly did not care about their marriage would be indifferent. I surely don't need to review the arguments, both for integrity, and for sexual reasons, why multiple partners, particularly for women, has never been accepted easily in any culture, and never in the West.... That does not mean that affairs are rare; they are not, but the conduct of an affair is quite different than that of a marriage, and involves large amounts of discretion and privacy. For [Wife] to discuss her relationship with [Boyfriend 5] openly with you has always seemed rude and even cruel. I cannot and will not justify it --not because I have particular religious scruples against [Wife] accepting the role of mistress, but because she does not seem to understand what that role of necessity requires. Privacy is a lost art, and takes a tremendous amount of maturity and conscious cultivation without being secretive (which is not the same at all). It means accepting boundaries graciously, and learning how to be deeply self-reliant. It is one way -- not the only way -- to learn how to be a woman.
Hosea: I am not quite sure what you mean by "Olympian emotional distance." Distance? Me from [Wife]? Me from her affairs? What would you rather expect to see instead? This is her ... well, let's see, it's a little hard to count. She has had 5 physical affairs that I know about, at least one of which lingered on and off for most of a decade. When I count 5, that is not counting [Boyfriend 5] because they have never met in the flesh yet; but you can make it 6 if you want to add him. I can think of at least two other emotional affairs that involved (as far as I can tell) no sexual contact -- and one of those two involved no impropriety of any kind, but was just a deep and hopeless love she had for a [married and totally faithful] coworker. But the upshot of numbers like this is that I can't allow myself to feel each and every one with full intensity all the time. That way madness lies. I have to draw a line somewhere. So yes, each of them hurts; but no, I am not going to allow myself to fall into the depths of agony each time, knowing that there have been this many in the past and will be more in the future. If that is "Olympian emotional distance" then so be it; I call it exhaustion and self-preservation.
The upshot is that I see this whole situation differently from you, in several important ways. You see that any husband in my position has every reason to get angry ... maybe even should get angry; that it is rude and cruel for [Wife] to discuss her boyfriends with me; that an affair requires cultivating privacy and tact as if they were arts. I won't quarrel with the last point, but I do quarrel with the first two. The fact is that I would rather know the truth, even if it hurts me, than be lied to. This is just very basic. Would I prefer it if [Wife] were happy with me and needed nobody else in her life? Well sure, of course. I'd prefer an end to world hunger, too, but just wishing for it doesn't get me very far. And if I can't get what I want by wishing for it, I would at least rather know the facts. Then -- when I have asked to be told the truth -- it is also up to me to react in a way that encourages I will also be told the truth next time. So I can't just fly off the handle, or I shut down the possibility of truth between us. And I think knowing the truth is more important than flattering my own personal ego with happy lies.
This means that by my lights, it is important that I not* get angry, and it is important that [Wife] feel comfortable discussing her boyfriends with me. It may be a counter-intuitive picture. It is not an altogether comfortable one. I just don't see a better picture that is founded on reality instead of wishful thinking.
Let me add here and now that I do not prescribe this for other people, or other marriages. This is where I personally find myself. I have no idea what is right for somebody else.
D: You and I differ on the value of “truth”. I really meant what I said about privacy and tact. There’s very little I value more. And for all the reasons you so eloquently suggest [in a later part of your last e-mail], that no gentleman should tell [degrading] stories about his wife and because to do otherwise is to violate every aspect of decency and honor. There is nothing about brutal honesty except wilderness and isolation. There isn’t any humanity or truth as we are to really comprehend it, as a shining and cleansing virtue. To truly be adult means to understand that there is ever so much that respectful silence has to offer. Only young people, with all the exuberance of youth, think honesty is always the best policy. It is not. Your goodness and hesed will not keep you from being used and abandoned. Re-read your first paragraph and understand why I wince at the end. You are not exhausted and interested in self-preservation. You are hurt and angry and close to despair. There are no Olympian heights for you -- would we have anything to say to each other if there were? -- and to fail to see the irony behind my statement is to miss my point entirely.
Hosea: Yes, I think we disagree on the value of truth, but rather than put the quotes around truth I would put them around value. I don't think truth has only a single value. Rather, I think truth has different values for different people, at different times, in different circumstances. There is a certain kind of boorish person who will say the most appallingly crude things to people at the most inopportune times, and then claim the excuse that everything he said was "true". Well maybe it was, but that doesn't excuse him and I don't think the "value" of truth rescues him even a little bit. But when I talk about wanting to know the truth -- even the most painful truths -- about the woman I love and the bond we share, that's different. In that case, I don't think that the truth is boorish or brutal or wild or isolating. At worst it is a kind of spiritual discipline ... for both the teller and the listener. For the teller, it is a discipline of courage: "Can I ever find the strength to tell him THIS or THAT?" And also of faith or trust: "After I've told him THIS, then what happens to me?" For the listener, it is a discipline to hear these hurtful things and to stand up under them, not to be crushed by them, and to continue loving the teller in spite of them all. What I hope for, when I want to create a space in which [Wife] feels safe to tell me the truth, is (1) that she gain the courage, step by step, to face the demons that haunt her, by naming them without fear; and (2) that she see that I still love her in spite of it all ... so that she can feel safer with me and with herself.
That's as far as we have gotten with this particular thread at the moment. More later, I am sure.
The Nibelung’s Ring: The Valkyrie 1
22 hours ago
7 comments:
I find this exchange fascinating from a philosophical standpoint. You and D are obviously both very intelligent people.
I see her side. I think the thought process is if Wife feels she must cheat (for whatever reason) and if her goal is to continue to stay married to you and not let those other relationships interfere with that, then telling you about it is hurting someone she loves deeply, and that would not be acceptable. As a 'cheater' myself, I see this side.
From your perspective, I see it more clearly and identify with it in a way as though "if I were you" (which of course I am now). Apollo and I were recently talking about distance in relationships. If you did not give her a forum where she can share these things with you, then you would be inherently encouraging a distance to form. Since your goal is to stay married, you accept the pain that comes with hearing about this in exchange for keeping the close intimate relationship you have with Wife.
I think you are sacrificing one thing for a higher goal. And that is quite admirable.
Hi Kyra,
Glad you liked it. I have a couple more in the pipeline, when I get time to do the edits and formatting.
One question: you write, "I ... identify with it in a way as though 'if I were you' (which of course I am now)." Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious, but what way is that? It's easy for me to list the ways that you and I are in different situations, but it's not so clear how you are me ....
Otherwise only a couple of minor clarifications of detail. (1) I'm not sure Wife would describe herself as loving me deeply these days. On the other hand, sometimes her self-understanding is surprisingly superficial, so perhaps the love is deep enough that it is not so obvious on the surface. It wouldn't surprise me a lot, in fact, if that turned out to be true. (2) I wish I could describe where we are today as a "close intimate relationship" but over the years we have both built a lot of barriers to that. Let's just say I sure don't want to add any more!
"if I were you" = married. As we know, that is a technical distinction and quoted because our situations are different.
So I was simply putting myself in your shoes as a married person and what I would want if my husband were the adulterer. Poorly stated, I will admit.
As for your wife loving you deeply, I think I was speaking from D's perspective - I think she is saying that if your wife did then she would shield you from the pain of knowing her infidelities.
I think your efforts to try to maintain as close an intimate relationship are admirable. Many men would not be so open to that.
Aha, now I understand. Thank you for the clarification.
As for your kind words generally ... have I mentioned lately that you are a sweetheart? If not, then shame on me for overlooking it.
D writes well, but I find her reasoning exceedingly hard to follow at times. I relate much more clearly to what you write. And of course I would, or else I likely wouldn't be your Reader! I wouldn't read D's blog, if she had one, because I find it so Strange.
Anyway, if there is a concrete application to D's point, she seems to be arguing that it would be better if you had no idea what Wife was doing and who she is seeing, either physically or virtually. That at least is an argument that I, as an adulterer, can understand.
But at least in my case, ultimately I still preferred truth.
Oh, and once again your blog has stretched my vocabulary: hesed. Very apt.
After this week, Apollo, I think it's possible that some of the strangeness in D's posts came from trying so hard to say this without inadvertently also spilling the beans about that ....
As for the new vocab word, you have to thank D for that one. I never knew it before. :-)
Post a Comment