I find that there is a "new romance" being born, and its hallmark
is the ability of a couple to relate to each other in each other's terms.
If, like peers, a couple lives life the same way, then they both
understand intimacy and romance on similar terms.
ROMANCE REDEFINED
One of the most significant differences between peer marriages and
traditional marriages is in the role of sex. Peer marriages are built on
commonality, traditional marriages on differences, especially power
differences--hero and heroine. Traditional sexual tension is anchored on
difference; male leadership and control of sex is regarded as inherently
erotic. The man's power and status over the woman turns them both
on.
Of course, all long-term relationships involve a diminution of
sexual interest. Familiarity is simply not as erotic as newness and the
desire to be loved and accepted--and to reconcile after difficulties. In
traditional marriages, passion is typically kept aroused by
disappointment, fear of loss, anger, and other types of negative
emotions. Couples may have good sex, but they finish still feeling that
they don't know their partner. There is an ultimate loneliness even after
making love.
Peer marriages get the ability for romance and for comfortable and
happy sex unencumbered by anger. And for intimacy unencumbered by
distance and lack of personal knowledge about the other partner.
In traditional marriages, couples have to work against massive odds
to achieve intimacy. Any security that may be attained is fleeting. There
may even be more sexual frequency when that is the only way a partner can
even hope to touch the other person emotionally. Whether it is more
deeply satisfying is very open to question. Many women I have
interviewed, in this study and others, report that the only time that
their husband shows himself to be emotionally needy is during sex. It is
the only time that he allows himself to be vulnerable.
Very passionate relationships are often tortured relationships.
Volatile people manufacture a great deal of adrenaline, and it adds an
edge to sex. Anger in one partner fuels the desire of the insecure
partner to be ratified by the one who loves less. It can be thrilling and
sexually explosive to get that affirmation, but it goes away right
afterwards. It may make for a passionate relationship, but it makes for a
lousy marriage and an insecure life. One important conclusion is that
passion is not the highest and best valuation of a couple's sex
life.
Passion can be evoked upon occasion, but what peer couples are
really superb at is romance--the good and lasting romance of equals. When
more than one person has expressive skills and uses them, more positive
exchange takes place, and satisfaction is greater. Peer couples:
o are dedicated to being a couple, over and above being a
family;
o display physical and verbal affection;
o spend nonutilitarian time together.;
o exchange conversation and gifts to show that the partner is
valued;
o celebrate special days that mark the relationship's beginning,
history, and progress.
All couples need these elements to enjoy romance; peer couples are
more likely to because both partners take responsibility for them.
If there is a downside to peer relationships, it's that in their
strong affinity for one another, peer couples have to fight against the
tendency for sex to become a residual category. They must specifically
cultivate this part of the relationship. The biggest problem, I found,
was that peer couples report that they are not having sex as often as
they used to.
Of course, for all couples, life gets in the way. But if the
vulnerability of traditional couples is anger and resentment, the
vulnerability of peer couples is keeping the spark alive. These couples
are getting so much from their relationship with each other that they do
not need sex to get all their emotional needs met.
Peer couples have to work at eroticism and at ways of coming
together sexually. The challenge is to take off the buddy mantle and find
erotic ways to play with each other. It may mean going off by themselves
for a weekend, or they may want to put on costumes and play out
individual fantasies; they have to take a break from the negotiated
partnership and from the communal self.
The positive side of this is that peer marriage actually frees
partners to bring their own private, uncovered self into the relationship
and display it in the bedroom. What is more, there can be more
innovation. Equalizing the initiation and leadership responsibilities in
sex doubles the creativity that can be brought to bear. Many peer couples
speak of this.
What typically happens in traditional marriages, I have long
observed, is that the woman makes the children her real emotional
community--in place of her partner. In a sense, he just seeds the family
and visits it. He does not have the same relationship to the child, and
he does not have the same relationship to the relationship that his
partner does.
By contrast, peer spouses have built up a real friendship and
investment in each other's life; they keep in the front of their mind
that their relationship is about the marriage. The children are part of
the marriage, but the marriage is not part of the children. Keeping that
fact straight is important both for the fluidity and validity of the
marriage, but also for safeguarding that child. No doubt, children are
best protected by a strong and happy marriage of two parents.
Tags:
american couples,
american men,
equality,
external sources,
friendship,
gender relations,
gender role,
human relationships,
marriage,
mutual respect,
parallel lives,
peer marriage,
peer relationship,
philip blumstein,
power structure,
rule books,
separate spheres,
sex lives,
sociologist,
traditional couples,
traditional gender,
traditional marriages,
traditional relationships,
wellspring
