Mating In Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence by Esther Perel

I think we all hold a special home for the books that simultaneously upset us while forcing us to grow. The frustration need not be simultaneous with the growth, but the combination leaves us with an impact that is unforgettable. Mating in Captivity hit some nerve I didn’t know existed without any sense of an apology. Esther Perel maintains this dichotomy between intimacy and eroticism, the line between the two need not be toed, rather they are to remain separate entities. This is not to say that eroticism can not be present in intimate long term relationships, in fact this is Esther Perel’s goal. But there is a specific relationship between intimacy and desire that allows both to thrive simultaneously. There is some natural way we as sexual beings fall into desire; eroticism can not be crafted. It is built from a sense of uncertainty and mystery. The sexy thrives on separation. But it is often the byproduct of intimate relationships that lead two or more individuals to feel completely connected to one another. There is no longer a separation between partners but rather an overlap. Indeed this forms a sense of safety that we can not know outside of complete familiarity, but what is there to be done about the fear of suffocation? We crave intimacy so desperately, work so hard to eliminate the space between partners, that we simultaneously blow out the flame that creates situations of eroticism. This is what Esther Perel and her clients of long term relationships report. 

Perell suggests that we solve this through a continuation of the separation that allowed desire to initially prosper. This space need not be physical. But without a sense of mystery, eroticism will die in between the bodies of lovers. Chapter 10 addresses a concept of separation where Perel states, “All relationships live in the shadow of the third”. The third exists at the boundary between partners. The fear of the third, or the other, often drives partners to tighten their relationships in a way that kills separation. The third is an old lover, the actors in porn, the mental fantasy of a stranger, a flirtatious smile from a kind coworker. Monogamy is the dominating relationship model in American culture. And any relationship that differs from the monogamous model is thought to be riddled with problems and is doomed to fail. The monogamous model requires lovers to ignore the shadow of the third; to push it down and away. But this forbiddenness eroticizes the third. Perel cites that this is often the case of infidelity and the tension is necessary to the eroticism of an affair; almost no affairs continue after a marriage has ended. The context, to breathe life to the third, allowed the situation to appear desirable. But the shadow of the third always lingers. We are people with sexuality in our identities (and that looks different for different people of course) and that sexuality often involves people outside of our monogamous partners. We have daydreams of past loves and watch porn with actors that are not our partners. Perel suggests that we invite the shadow of the third into our monogamous relationships. Acknowledging tension allows us to grow in relationships. It allows for the formation of trust and gives us the opportunity to see what our partners sexual fantasies are really like. Most importantly, accepting the shadow of the third helps us to recognize that we are not alone in our fantasies. Normalizing the idea that your partner thinks someone else is attractive, or that you both find someone attractive, allows for the fear of the third to leave. After this fear has been eradicated, eroticism can grow organically (without fear) in our relationships.  

What caught me most off guard about Mating in Captivity was Esther Perel's opposition to verbal communication. A democratic love ethos focused on talking has only contributed to the death of the erotic. Eros creates its own language that lovers must speak through, again fueling the separation between intimate partnerships and intimacy. Somatic communication and the primal actions that call to the individual are necessary for eros. As a product of the 21st century shaped by sex positive feminism and the unveiling of generations long perpetrated sexual abuse, I am caught off guard by the idea that verbal communication has ruined the sexy. What is sexier than clear communication that specifies how pleasure is to be produced and discomfort avoided? The introduction of talking during sex has truly benefitted my sexual relationships. Yes it brings perpetual discomfort but it is only with this ritual of talking that my pleasure has been known. I know many young people that echo this sentiment. I also know many young people that detest language in the bedroom as it takes away from their own eroticism. This being said, I hear Perel. There are so many other positive sexual experiences that I can look to that involved minimal communication. In a way, that is what made them hot. But to advocate that the rise of verbal communication has diminished eroticism at large is much too broad of a statement. I do believe that the population Perell comes into contact with the most during her work are those who came into their sexuality without this communicative emphasis. But this I can not say for certain. Perhaps it is the reversal of sexual norms within the partnership that allows for eroticism to be reborn. It has effectively restarted the cycle of the relationship bringing with it the misery and excited necessary for sexual intensity to thrive. 

Mating in Captivity will remain a memorable read for me. I approach this text with no familiarity of a long term partnership that has lost its eroticism. I lack the familiarity of a long term partnership. But this text has served as helpful energy. I do not promote monogamy as a one-size-fits-all model but I do believe those in monogamous relationships deserve to have healthy and fulfilling sexual lives. It fills me with interest and intrigue. Most importantly, Mating in Captivity brings a normalcy to conversations around estranged desire. It is often for us to discuss sex, see sexuality at play, and partake in actions of eroticism, but it is rare for us to detour from this norm to acknowledge estranged desire. 

All About Love: New Visions by bell hooks

bell hooks provides a radical defense and promotion of love. Indeed, we do not often think of how we fail to view ourselves as loving beings. We rather be people that wait to fall in love and release ourselves of the intentional responsibility true love so desperately needs. We use romantic love as the guise of healing from the past love we felt we had not received. We pray that love comes our way in the form of a romantic partner but we have no notion of action after we have found such a person. It is significantly easier to talk of the woes of love as opposed to the way it uplifts us. 

hooks leads us through the web we have tangled around ourselves, as we clutch towards the transparent strings of inaction. hooks holds that love has essential values. If we do not recognize these values, we will fail to love long before we have set out to love. hooks paint the act of loving as a small community; it is a small town where the connection between its residents allows for the survival of a joyous soul. We see the process of love idealized in hooks’ very conception of love. 

True love is the takes on a variety of definitions for hooks within this text. But there is a consistent and ongoing theme of genuineness, humility, and action. Loving is necessary. 

Forgiveness is a radical act. But it appears that the act of loving is even more radical. It is necessary to forgive in order to love fully and truly. Both ourselves and the ones we love are necessary recipients of forgiveness. This does seem somewhat paradoxical to hook’s early claim that love can not be present where abuse is. But perhaps this can be resolved through the action of love. It is necessary to forgive to love, and while love might not be present in situations of abuse, it is always possible to be someone willing to act lovingly. Perhaps this forgiveness does not happen within the relationship of abuse. There is a whole variety of abusive models that perpetuate the lives of many American relationships, and hooks touches on many of them. But if we are to hold that loving requires active and ongoing work, often synonymous with struggle, then where do we draw the line between a relationship in need of mending and one of abuse that should not be tolerated. I agree both forgiveness and loving are radical acts. But there is an onslaught of complicated roadblocks that deter many of us from reaching true love or a realm of forgiveness. I do not doubt that bell hooks saw these hurdles and would hold that her treatise remains appropriate. 

Despite feeling a noticeable change in my body after having read All About Love, I still fight against the purity of loving hooks presents. How could such a perfect thing as this form of loving exist? I do not believe I am alone in this reluctant acceptance; this skepticism of the ideal. It even remains a challenge to refer to love as a verb as opposed to a noun. It might be my mantra from now that: I am an individual that is loving, loves, has and will experience loving. I feel I can say, with confidence, that there would be a decrease in pain if these text were in the hands of many more.