This topic was prompted by a question that appeared in the Philanderers'
Forum. On 2 June 1999, "Totally" posted the following message:
"Is it possible for a man that has had a few affairs to ever be faithful?
I'm asking because I am now facing a long term relationship with him.
And I know I'm a hypocrite, cos I've been having an affair with him for
the last 8 months. I just don't know how I feel about trusting him."
I suspect that the most popular answer from philanderers and from
those virtuous folk who never have affairs would the same: Don't trust
him! However, there is more than one route which can be taken to arrive
at this conclusion. Let's consider some of the differences here.
Coming from a non-philanderer, the advice that Totally shouldn't trust
her lover assumes that we all know what trust is. Moreover, it assumes
that trust is an inherently desirable and even necessary quality in the
relationship. Why, then, should it be that so many relationships
(including that of the last eight months between Totally's man and his
regular partner) are characterised by duplicity and betrayal? In the
ideology of fidelity (in its late 20th century, Anglo-American form),
this is explained through a simple division of the world's population
into two groups: the good people (who can be 'trusted', are 'faithful',
etc) and the bad people (who can't and aren't). In other words, trust
is individualised: it becomes 'trustworthiness', the quality of an
individual who is more or less capable and deserving of a Proper
Heterosexual Relationship. In this view, Totally's lover is one of the
bad guys, a man who can't and shouldn't be trusted. Is Totally herself
also one of the 'bad guys'? Perhaps, though the high value she places
on fidelity and trust suggests (according to the conventional view) that
she might be a candidate for reform, perhaps contingent upon sincere
repentance and a renewed commitment to her primary partner (if she has
one). Taken to its logical conclusion, the non-philanderer's advice
"Don't trust him!" must be heard as an bleak instruction to Totally to
ditch her lover now while she still has a chance to redeem herself.
Now let's look at how a philanderer might approach the question of trust
differently. This time, the answer "Don't trust him!" can be reached
without assuming that we all know what trust is. It can also do without
the assumption that trust is inherently desirable and necessary. Here,
the important aspects of Totally's problem are differently emphasised.
The questions are not "can he be faithful?", "can she trust him?", but
"why would she want him to be faithful?", "why should she want to start
trusting him - at least in this particular way?". While the
non-philanderer is effectively saying "Don't trust him - he's a bad
guy", the philanderer's advice can be heard as saying "Don't ruin a perfectly good relationship by bringing trust into it".
This is not an advertisement for open relationships. The official
organs of open relationships (also known as polyamory: check out
www.lovemore.com) counterbalance their sexual liberalism with an
unusually heavy emphasis on notions of 'trust' and 'honesty' as the key
to success. In a nutshell, the polyamorists take the moral high ground
despite their liberal sexual practices by portraying themselves as even
more trustworthy and honest than the boring old monogamists. They
excuse their extramarital sexual adventures by placing them in a context
of a carefully-negotiated marital arrangement which preserves and
upholds honesty (in the form of confession) and commitment (sexual
licence is bought at the cost of a renewed emphasis on staying
permanently married).
The seasoned philanderer has no truck with such a philosophy. What the
polyamorists miss, and what the philanderer knows is this: Trust is an over-rated virtue. One can find both liberation and security with a partner who is entirely untrustworthy.
Suppose that for the last eight months Totally and her man have been
having a perfectly happy affair. What if the philanderer were to list
the sorts of things that Totally might, in that time, have found to love
about this relationship?
(1) The man has not promised to be faithful to Totally and so she is
exempt from having to make the painful discovery that he has been
cheating on her (a form of diplomatic immunity not shared by his primary
partner).
(2) He has not vowed to live with her until death parts them and so she
is exempt from ever having to deal with the unpleasant surprise of
being suddenly deserted (again, his primary partner is not so lucky).
(3) He knows how to look after his own interests and personal happiness
and has the initiative to conduct discreet extramarital relationships
where this is an appropriate move for him. Thus, even if she were to
become his primary partner, Totally is unlikely to find herself in a
situation where she believes she has sole responsibility for
entertaining her man romantically and sexually. This advantage is not
to be underestimated. How many readers (especially women) know the
burden of feeling solely and permanently responsible for their faithful
partners?
Additionally, it is worth noting that Totally and her man know
that the other is capable of lying - effectively and continuously for
months on end, if necessary. Thus, as a couple they are released from
the moral imperative to be honest with each other. This is a unique
blessing. Perversely, in the rhetoric of Proper Relationships, honesty,
as a performance of blunt truthfulness, is made equal to a loving
concern for the emotional welfare of one's partner. Conversely, lying
(including lying by omission) is equated with acting maliciously. This
is strange, because in most cases of marital deception the opposite
principle is demonstrated. We lie to our partners about our
infidelities because we want to protect their feelings. Similarly, we
conceal our thoughts whenever we find our partner unattractive or
tiresome because to reveal those thoughts would be positively spiteful.
We might go so far as to say that most marital lying involves telling
your partner what they want to hear. Lying may be an essential ingredient in a successful marriage.
If this is the case, Totally and her man are on the first step to a
happy future. Because they know that they are both thoroughly
untrustworthy, they are free to love each other with silences and
fictions as well as kisses and confidences. They are free to
care for each other emotionally without being compromised by principles
of honesty or notions of accountability and guilt.
In short, the philanderer's version of the advice "Don't trust him!" can
be heard as a variation on the old truism "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it". Trust and fidelity are not presently ingredients in the
relationship between Totally and her man. Indeed, since it has the
status of an extramarital affair,
it is positively distinguished by its lack of those traditional
virtues. And so far, it would seem, the relationship has been going
rather well. So, a seasoned philanderer might ask, why rock the boat?
To introduce honesty and trust into the relationship now would surely be
to usher in deception and betrayal at the same time.
A final comment remains to be made. Astute readers may be asking
themselves on what grounds Totally can trust the philanderer's advice.
How can anyone be sure that the philanderer's account of trust is not
itself a lie or a kind of deception? The answer: you can't, or to put
it another way, you don't have to. It could be a pack of lies (and
probably is). Best not to be taken in.
©
No comments:
Post a Comment