Who's afraid of Client 9? (Marital Relationships and Eliot Spitzer)

LA Times ^ | 22 March 2008 | Megan Dahm

[shrinkermd]

...So why, despite this avalanche of chatter, do we still seem hungry for even more chatter? Why are so many people continuing to chew on the Spitzers as if the secret to marital happiness is embedded in the talking point of the next pundit? More important, why didn't Spitzer's replacement, David A. Paterson, manage to defang the whole subject by announcing on his second day in office that he and his wife had had extramarital affairs in the past?

...At its core, it reveals how much uncertainty exists within even the strongest and most enduring relationships...humans desperately want to think that long-term sexual monogamy works. We want to believe that, through some combination of willpower, luck and, as Cosmo might say, "smart love moves," we will neither cheat nor be cheated upon.

But few things in life are less controllable than the urges and actions of other people, even those with whom we believe we have the greatest intimacy. There exists in even the healthiest and sanest relationships an element of chaos, out of which no amount of therapy or "active listening" can create order. That chaos can keep us interested as readily as it can make us want to give up.

Although I'm still not sure which angle of the Spitzer saga offers the most insight into intimate relationships, I do suspect that what keeps us hanging on every word has less to do with fascination than with fear. The idea that sexual betrayal, although certainly not inevitable, might belong more to the realm of probability than possibility is downright terrifying.

No wonder we keep searching for meaning in a story whose real meaning is something we don't exactly want to know.

[shrinkermd]

A serious and profound effort by Ms Dahm. She is to be commended.

One way to look at marriage is from the viewpoint of friendship. It is not the only way, but it is a helpful way. Non marital friendships can be roughly categorized as being one of three types: (1)Business or other acquaintances where there is a trade like relationship; (2)Mutual gratification or enjoyment relationships; (3) And, intimate and close friendships where both are inspired to be and do better than they would ordinarily.

Many marriages are simple trade offs. "You do the housework and I'll bring home the bacon" relationships. These are easily breached since they are matters of opportunity and convenience.

Other marriages are mutual enjoyment parties. Besides sex participation in other joys and a Dionysian seeking of losing oneself in pair or group pleasure. Of course, these, too, are vulnerable to newer and better entertaining partners.

Finally, there is the intimate and close marriage. Here, the value of the intimacy and personal growth is such they tolerate lapses of good judgment and loyalty better than the other two. Indeed, because of the value and rarity, it is hard to severe these relationships and they are severed only under the most egregious of errors and disappointments. Lapses of morals are ordinarily forgiven.

[PGalt]

But, by God, we need something.

Try truth, honesty.

[GOPJ]

What New York pol was put in his place by being on the list? Maybe #8 or above? Some liberal? And that the person or group had “pull” with the MSM...

[ricks_place]

David A. Paterson, manage to defang the whole subject by announcing on his second day in office that he and his wife had had extramarital affairs in the past?

If you consider making yourself a public laughingstock a defanging!

Governor Paterson re-knoodled his wife in the same hotel he knoodled his mistress! Heck Paterson probably booked the same suite! All for constituent services! Wonder if the sheets were changed! - lol

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St. ...He and his wife went to the West Side Days Inn when they were trying to rekindle the romance in their marriage, he said.

The Paterson Campaign Suite at The West Side Days Inn - "The Love Shack"

[Tammy8]

He is one clueless man- taking the wife and mistress to the same hotel? Wife is likely as mad about that detail as the rest of it.

[Piquaboy]

Do not include Me in that We stuff, I am sick of hearing about it.

[SamuraiScot]

"You do the housework and I'll bring home the bacon" relationships. These are easily breached since they are matters of opportunity and convenience.

In theory, that's what you might expect. But that's not my observation at all (having grown up around a lot of divorces and successful marriages). There is a peacefulness and mutual reliance when each party knows exactly what's expected.

Finally, there is the intimate and close marriage. Here, the value of the intimacy and personal growth is such they tolerate lapses of good judgment and loyalty better than the other two

Here, too, that's what you'd expect. But these can be much more sensitive to betrayal or disappointment.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

“A serious and profound effort by Ms Dahm. She is to be commended.”

I agree, but I must take issue with these paragraphs:

“In much the same way the Bush administration was convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, humans desperately want to think that long-term sexual monogamy works. We want to believe that, through some combination of willpower, luck and, as Cosmo might say, “smart love moves,” we will neither cheat nor be cheated upon.”

I agree with her on humanity's need for stable love and affection, but to imply that monogamy doesn't work is to ignore 6,000 years of recorded human history. Societies without monogamy dissolve. Those with it, prosper

“But few things in life are less controllable than the urges and actions of other people, even those with whom we believe we have the greatest intimacy. “

She misses the point. The issue is NOT the actions of OTHER people but our own actions. We can chose to be faithful, even if our spouse is not. And by our fidelity we can influence our spouse to be faithful.

She does not address the religious aspect of marriage and fidelity—both of which originate from God. God missing from marriage is why marriages fail. Eliminate God and your friendship analysis is spot on. There is no “glue” to hold the two together aside from mutual convenience and in any intimate relationship one party will be inconvenienced on a regular basis.

[ricks_place]

He is one clueless man- taking the wife and mistress to the same hotel? Wife is likely as mad about that detail as the rest of it.

Paterson did not take the wife and mistress to the same hotel and at the same time, as far as has been publicly acknowledged!

[Tammy8]

I probably wasn’t clear in my post- I didn’t think he took them at the same time. I know that would add fuel to my fire if my hubby chose the same hotel to “rekindle” with me that he chose to cheat in. Maybe it’s a woman thing- I have known women who found out hubby was cheating and trust me the anger was levels higher if the place was one she had considered “their” place. Whether it was their own home or a favored spot it really brings out more anger.

[ricks_place]

You were clear in your post but a comic picture crossed my mind of Paterson running between two rooms in the hotel through the night! I imagine most spouses would be displeased, to say the least.

[Dr.Syn]

We want to believe that, through some combination of willpower, luck and, as Cosmo might say, "smart love moves," we will neither cheat nor be cheated upon.

It seems as though the author omitted "morals" aka a belief in God as a binding force in marriage. The thought of going to hell certainly makes any gain from an affair come into instant perspective.

Oh...that's right...this is a secular society!

[mewzilla]

...manage to defang the whole subject...

Snort. That's what she thinks...

[MondoQueen]

“God missing from marriage is why marriages fail. Eliminate God and your friendship analysis is spot on. There is no “glue” to hold the two together aside from mutual convenience and in any intimate relationship one party will be inconvenienced on a regular basis.”

Absolutely true! These “modern” folk think that some magic can keep their spouses faithful, but “faithful” means that they rely on their faith to keep them faithful. Simple as that!