Esther Perel is a Belgium-born therapist whose book,
Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Domestic and the Erotic,--just out in paper--
has been said to read like a cross between Jaques Lacan and
French Women Don’t Get Fat. Personally, I think it’s
Fear of Flying meets
Jane Sexes It Up—an implicitly sexy and intellectually fearless 21st century manifesto on sex
inside marriage, for both women and men. According to Perel, mating in captivity is not a problem to solve. Rather, it’s a paradox to manage. And manage we can.
I recently had the chance to sit down with this brilliant, vivacious thinker at her Manhattan home. Snippets from our follow-up below.
THE BOOK
DS: What made you decide to write this book?
EP: There were a number of converging motivations. At the time of the Clinton affair I was intrigued at how adultery could become a matter of national political agenda in the US. Why was it I wondered, that this country showed a lot of tolerance for divorce, but was rather intransigent vis a vis infidelity when the rest of the world had traditionally been more tolerant of infidelity and less so of divorce.
In my professional life, I would attend conferences and be struck by an overemphasis on pathology and dysfunction and a tendency to leave out of the conversations the notions of pleasure and eroticism when addressing a couple’s sexual life.
The claim that sexual problems were always the result of relational problem and that one should fix the relation and the sex would follow, did not bear true for me. I saw many couples who’s relationship would improve significantly and it would do little to their sex life. I would see loving caring couples whose desire flat lined and not because of a breakdown in intimacy. I began to rethink what had often struck me, that it isn’t always the lack of closeness that stifles desire, but sometimes too much closeness. So I started to question a host of assumptions on the nature of erotic desire over the long haul that are held as truths and could use deeper examination. A number of questions occupied me: Why does great sex so often fade in couples who claim to love each other as much as ever? Can we want what we already have? Why is the forbidden so erotic? Why does good intimacy not guarantee great sex? And why does the transition to parenthood so often spell erotic disaster in couples?
DS: Your book is being published in 22 countries and 20 languages, and has just come out in paperback. I loved seeing all the different covers all lined up on your shelf. What aspect has surprised you the most about the book's international reception?EP: I originally wrote MIC from the position of a foreign therapist observing American sexuality. Now that the book has been translated broadly, what stands out is the pervasiveness of the breakdown of desire in all societies where the romantic ideal has entered. Never before did we have a model of long-term sexuality that was rooted in desire. People had sex for reproduction, or out of marital duty. Bringing lust home is the next taboo. Everywhere people are wondering about this fading of desire, they fill pages of books and magazine to spice things up. But if it were so simple, we wouldn’t need a new recipe each week.
The covers alone speak volumes about how each society deals with sexuality.
In my travels to 16 countries this year I got to experience some the unique tensions and changes that are at play in each society. It was as if in each country there was a theme that emerged: female infidelity in Argentina and Mexico, homosexuality in Turkey, the shift from reproductive sexuality when people had 12 children on the farms of Norway to the 2 or 3 kid family or the sexual consequences of the egalitarian model of Sweden to name but a few.
ON SEX, EGALITARIANISM, AND FEMINISMDS: I've been thinking a lot these days about the word "egalitarianism"—or rather, the expectation women my generation grew up with here in the U.S. that our relationships with men would be marked by this sense of reciprocity and mutuality in all realms. Including the bedroom. And I'm interested in your argument that "mutuality," "democracy." and "equity" in bed result in very boring sex. Did feminism do something to sex? Tell us more about why what you call politically incorrect sex is so important for couples today.EP: Indeed I do think that America’s best features--the belief in democracy, equality, consensus, fairness, mutual tolerance—can, when carried too punctiliously in the bedroom, result in very boring sex. Feminism fought hard to eradicate differences, and abuses of power, and we are still far from victorious. While I very much recognize these momentous achievements, I do think that it brought with it unanticipated consequences. To extricate power, aggression, difference is antithetical to erotic desire.
Sexual desire doesn’t always play by the rules of good citizenship. What excites us most at night is sometimes the very thing we fight against in daytime. There is a subversion at play in the erotic realm. The erotic mind is politically incorrect, thriving on power plays, role reversals, unfair advantages, imperious demands, seductive manipulations, and subtle cruelties. if we all fantasized about a bed of roses, we would not have such a hard time talking about all this, but the erotic mind is not always neat, or docile. There is a whole other side to eros.
DS: Have you had any particularly interesting conversations with feminist thinkers on this point of late that you can share? And generally speaking, what has been the feminist response to your book? (Not that there's ever just one feminist response of course…But just curious!)EP: I read the French feminist psychoanalysts like Luce Irigaray, and Elizabeth Badinter. I found the writings of Camille Paglia and Laura Kipnis most interesting. I was in a conversation with her at the New York Public Library and, as is often the case, any open conversation on the vicissitudes of desire leads to talking about the limits of monogamy.
The feminist thinkers in my field listen to me apprehensively sometimes wondering if I undervalue the importance for the need for security and safety for women to experience sex.
Others have engaged with me in conversations about how I choose to define the word “Intimacy”. But mostly I have received very positive feedback from feminist writers and practitioners that has really touched me. I feared that I may be taken to an extreme I did not mean to go, and it did not happen luckily. Mostly I am told that I wrote what we all know, think, feel and don’t say out loud. Now in the last months I have been preparing a series of talks on female sexual desire, or lack thereof, where I am introducing a different way to conceptualize female desire than the dominant models, and we shall see.
DS: I personally don't buy into the concept of postfemnism, but is there such a thing as postfeminist sex? What would it look like? (Will I know it when I see it?)EP: A few points come to mind: a focus that that expands from sexual sovereignty to sexual pleasure. The idea that we don’t have one sexuality, but a few sexualities in the course of our life. The shift to a more androgynous view of love that transcends the binary models of gender thinking. And an understanding that what is emotionally nurturing isn’t the same as what is sexually exciting. These are two different needs that spring from different sources and pull us in different directions.
MENDS: You write, "American men and women, shaped by the feminist movement and its egalitarian ideas, often find themselves challenged by these contradictions." Please say more about how younger men—the sons of feminism, that is—are challenged by contradictions. Of what sort?EP: In heterosexual couples, I see men who struggle to find a place for themselves sexually with their partner, and with how to express a masculinity that includes a striving force, a drive, assertiveness and that will be welcomed by the women. They are reluctant to reveal their sexual turn ons to their partner for fear of insulting her. Moreover, having lost the male privilege of a woman who’ll perform her wifely duty, they need to keep her erotically engaged, seduce her, make her feel desirable and interested in him. The idea that committed sex is intentional, premeditated consciously willed clashes against the myth of spontaneity. Another point is that if women can do all what the man does, where does that leave him? What is specific to him? Ou est la difference?
It is important for him to convey to her that the language of intimacy for him is often not verbal, but physical and sexual. Additionally, he wonders how to bring the erotic home, be safely ruthless with the woman he loves and respects.
Given the power shifts, men often struggle to integrate masculinity and sexuality in their intimate relationships.
DS: When we last spoke, you mentioned that you've seen more and more men struggling with a loss of sexual desire at younger and younger ages. Why do men seem to be experiencing this loss so early on? What's changed? The women? Or the men?EP: Well, we live in a time that focuses on instant gratification. The current generation of boys and girls, raised in a way where they never have to feel any frustration nor boredom, is turning out to be the one with the greatest difficulties with sustaining desire. If you have never wanted something, longed for it etc., you cannot know desire. Where there is no frustration there is no desire.
I am interested in the role of porn in the lives of coupled men, as well as the degree of sexual honesty and communication in relationships. The all-out exposure of sex on billboards does not translate in the privacy of our bedrooms.
To order
Mating in Captivity, click here
That debate made nothin' any easier. To even the score and balance all my Hillary blogging, here's an Obama reader to cap off the day:
For the first time in my voting life, I’m torn. In five days, I’ll need to pull a lever in a New York Democratic Primary that matters. And I don’t know what to do. I want to vote for Hillary. I want her to be electable. She moves me. And so does Barak. I like much of what both of them stand for. I want to speak out publicly for one of them. But who?
I've just GOT to tell you all about this crazyamazing event I went to yesterday to celebrate Susan Morrison's new edited collection, 30 Ways of Looking at Hillary, thrown by More magazine, at the swanky restaurant Daniel. I'm still trying to figure out how to write about it--and not just the nine herb ravioli with Jerusalem arthichoke puree and parmesean emulsion.
Laura Mazer (left) is a powerhouse. She's also my sister-in-pigtails. We'll be doing a panel together at WAM!, in Cambridge, in March. Deets to follow soon. In the meantime, if in the SF-area and hungry for the secrets behind writing and selling your first book, I highly recommend this one-day intensive with Laura:
My friend and personal hero Stephanie Coontz is working on a cool new project and I've offered to help her recruit. She's writing a study of the influence of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique. It's a biography, not of Betty Friedan, but of the book itself – its history and influence over the decades (or, perhaps, its lack of influence after a particular date). Stephanie is eager to hear from younger women, as well as people who read the book when it first came out, about how it impacted them--or in some cases, among those who read it later, disappointed them--then.
My o my what a day.
I've been thinking so much about Hillary these days. And lately, I've been thinking about how media coverage of an "intergenerational divide" in women's support of her may be fueling, and not just documenting, discord among women across generations. I'm very eager to see some analysis of the age divide after primary season is over and we've all had a chance to chill. 
So as promised, a bit about my experience participating in the Progressive Women's Voices Project, a new media training and spokesperson program from the Women’s Media Center to connect media professionals with media-savvy women experts in a variety of fields. Funded by a grant from the NoVo Foundation, the program provides its participants with intensive media training and ongoing support "to promote their perspective and message into the national dialogue."
Some really great recap-blogging going on out there about the Progressive Women's Voices Project that I'm feeling extremely humbled and honored to be participating in. Here's Courtney Martin on the evening we all went to dinner and had a collective kiniption fit when the restaurant turned the channel from CNN (it was the night of the South Carolina primary) to the Sports Channel. Here's Joanne Cronrath Bamberger on what you do when Gloria Steinem calls. And here's Linda Lowan (of About.com's Women's Issues blog) on democracy in action. Thank you to these three for sharing their thoughts so far, and I promise to throw in soon too!
Check out this fresh take on those who are male, single and not your stereotype in the Canadian Press. 
Another take--or rather, takedown--on the racegenderpolitics discussion, over at HuffPo. GWP guest blogger Cathy Prendergast wrote more about the CNN website debacle Cho refers to in her post, here. (Thanks to Ann at feministing for the heads up.)
You can now read about it, on the GWN blog, here.
Join the National Organization for Women Foundation, National Council of Negro Women, and the Institute for Women's Policy Research for the 2008 Summit on Economic Justice for Women, April 11-12 in Atlanta, Georgia. The summit is dedicated to "Bringing Together Research and Advocacy--from Local to Global--to Advance Economic Justice and Empowerment for Women." To register, click here.
One of my favorite things about what I do is when I’m able to bring other women into the fold. Blogging is contagious, and it is a joy beyond measure to see feminists find their online voice. 
So as part of my participation in the Women's Media Center's new Progressive Women's Voices Project, I've been reading up on polls and found something* very interesting to share. Did you know that more men may think our nation is ready for a woman president than women do? 
New blogger on the block/financial whiz girl Jacki Zehner and I coauthored another one today over at HuffPo. Come visit, and read our take on the week's market events! There's a groundhog involved. For reals.
Frank F. Furstenberg, Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and Senior Fellow at the Council on Contemporary Families, has just released a briefing paper intended to stimulate discussion among researchers and clinicians in advance of the Council's 11th annual conference, April 25-26, University of Illinois at Chicago--where I'll definitely be! Join me?
The Conference Board/Families and Work Institute Work Life Conference on March 5-6, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia will explore the critical business issue of how employees work and live today, and what the impact of these changes is on employee engagement and talent management. Highlights include:
Virginia Rutter (the gal who brought us "Who Votes Their Gender?" the other week) took time out from writing college lectures to pen this excellent review of Juno from the perspective of a sex researcher. As you likely know by now, Juno was just nominated by the Academy for four Oscars, including Best Film, and Best Actress (Ellen Page). We're bound to see a continued discussion of the issues the film raises in coming months, and here Virginia calls our attention to something other reviewers have overlooked: the way our culture talks about--or rather, doesn't talk about--luuuvvv. -GWP
Today, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, has become Blog for Choice Day. Some poignant blogging going on around the blogosphere. Thought I'd share a few of the posts that have most caught my eye:
Catherine Prendergast is Professor of English and Co-Director of the Ethnography of the University Initiative at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign. She is the author of Literacy and Racial Justice: The Politics of Learning after Brown v. Board of Education, a book Gloria Ladson-Billings called "a breath of fresh air in what has been a very stale atmosphere.” As I think you'll agree after reading Cathy's post here, she's also one of the freshest thinkers on the much-blogged topic of race in this race around. On top of that, she's a dear friend of mine from graduate school and can twirl a mehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifan pirouette. Here's Cathy:
Wrote he:
In response to Katka's request, while I don't yet have pix of Friday's event, I DO have this one of my friend Andrea's little girl Grace reading a book, taken at my apartment yesterday. A girl-write-now of the future!
I'm late to this one, but just read Michiko's review of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary. (Thanks, Heather!). Michiko writes, referring to Hillary's teary moment the other week,
Yes I did.
Busy day over here in real space, and hence no time to post! You can catch me online however at HuffPo, where feminist philanthropist/pundit/all around wonder woman Jacki Zehner and I co-authored a post today ("The Confidence Man") in response to the latest economic news delivered by the Bush administration. Our heads are pasted together, left. Our joint post begins like so:
Come one, come all!!! 
Check out the Feburary issue of More magazine (on stands this week!) for a look at the women running Hillary's campaign, by journalist Ann Gerhart. And don't miss the accompanying forum, called "If Hillary Wins," compiled by yours truly. 
Esther Perel is a Belgium-born therapist whose book, Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Domestic and the Erotic,--just out in paper--has been said to read like a cross between Jaques Lacan and French Women Don’t Get Fat. Personally, I think it’s Fear of Flying meets Jane Sexes It Up—an implicitly sexy and intellectually fearless 21st century manifesto on sex inside marriage, for both women and men. According to Perel, mating in captivity is not a problem to solve. Rather, it’s a paradox to manage. And manage we can.
More excellent follow-up to Steinem's New York Times op-ed now up over at HuffPo from third waver (and GS goddaughter) Rebecca Walker, titled "The Fence." As in on the fence. As in the fence often constructed between second-wave and third-wave feminists. Writes Walker,
For those of us left pondering the extent to which women of color are being left out of conversations on race and gender around the 2008 elections, Carol Jenkin's article "Invisible Woman," is this week's must-read from the Women's Media Center. Writes Jenkins,
I'm so pleased to post here--soon!--snippets from an interview I did with brilliant marriage and family therapist Esther Perel, whose book Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Domestic and the Erotic, just came out in paperback. The book is currently available in 15 countries and will soon be published in Greece, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Turkey. Not like I'm jealous or anything. Jeesh. 
Me, at Marco's folks' house in FLA, during the break...That dude's always catching me at goofy lookin moments I tell ya.
