Backdoor Relationships

For me, it's enjoyable to break the constant drumbeat of political thinking with some other issues out there-- sometimes fun or offbeat things. When I go looking for interesting articles, sometimes one catches my eye and then surprises me. Such a case was in this piece on Vanity Fair: What kind of men have affairs?

Although I am always interested in articles on human motivations, the fact that men and women have affairs wasn't the surprise. The thing that surprised me was a social networking site online just for the purposes of finding an affair partner. I knew there were sites for people to meet. Knew there were sites to meet specific categories like say beautiful people or millionaires; but this is one purely for those who want affairs and nothing more. It appears it was widely known, millions of members, and has been discussed on cable programs like The View. I didn't actually peruse the site (its name is in the article) because it would have required joining, but how did something that has been on CNN fly under or over my radar?

Incidentally, the article doesn't, in my opinion, answer the question of what kind of men-- other than, of course, not satisfied with something in their primary relationship and not wanting to end it. One of my friends, when I was discussing this, said why just men? Well because the woman writing it was having an affair with a married man but was not married herself.

The discussed site has a mostly male membership (that's not surprising) and a registered trademark-- Life is Short. Have an affair. Nothing poetic about that. This is not Jane Austen level prose.

Related to this, I recently watched a 1999 film version of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. The film had a bit more to do with men and women who have alternative ideas about monogamy than many of her books. The film is a mix of her book and Austen's own journals and writings.

Jane Austen experienced a life that began with material benefits but turned to poverty when her father died, with all of his wealth passing to his sons leaving his wife and daughters nothing except the sons' charity. What a time that was when women had so little value other than as male child producers.

Anyway in Mansfield Park there is a rake who the heroine, Fanny, recognizes for what he is and refuses to accept his proposal (she's also in love with someone else). Rakes are not unusual in Austen stories, but the interesting addition was a female rake (the man's sister) who would marry for money but also had a libertine's attitude toward marriage and relationships.

The film, besides taking some character liberties with the heroine, probably didn't do justice to the complexities of the characters because it was under 2 hours. I have decided all Jane Austen books need mini-series to explore the characters and plot complexities.

The film was depressing given the limitations so many people experienced in a world where there so few opportunties. People were more or less forced into patterns that their families had set. Then to make it worse, in Mansfield Park, the wealthy had gotten their benefits from slavery and terribly immoral attitudes toward other human beings. This was shown as exacting a price. The solidly moral people were rewarded in the end even if Austen herself knew no such happy ending to her own short life.

In 'What kind of men have affairs?' the author questions the belief that monogamy and true love are rewarded in the end. She proposes that affairs might help marriages keep going which otherwise might break apart-- obviously justifying her own actions or perhaps trying to be controversial and getting a book deal.

My question would be, material losses and small children aside, perhaps those marriages would be better if they did break apart for even the innocent partner. Is a person whose spouse is off having an affair really oblivious? Are they trading financial security for emotional sustenance? Would they be better off, emotionally at least, if the marriage ended and they found another partner more appreciative of who they were?

I don't really second guess the choices others make regarding affairs. To be honest, I don't see them as wrong or right; but where the problems start is with the required deception and lying. What does that do to a person's character? Austen's stories would suggest there is a price to be exacted. Personally I am not so sure. Books are easier to make tidy than life.

As usual, questions are easier for me to pose than answers. I ask the following one every so often but have yet to get answers that make sense to me. Is lifetime monogamy natural to humans? Is its expectation mostly based on religion? If it's not realistic for many people (obviously there are exceptions), what purpose does tying a couple together for a lifetime serve? I suspect there are more than a few second or even third marriages that finally hit the emotional jackpot but would never have existed with a lifetime commitment that stuck. Most Americans are pretty comfortable with serial monogamy but nothing else.

To add to the questions, how many people today get into affairs because the internet makes it so easy? Or does the internet just provide a safer conduit than the way things used to progress?

As I was trying to get a sharp photo of the red dragonfly, I saw two damselflies which appeared to be mating. They flew in unison from one spot to another. The single dragonfly and the damselflies seemed apropos illustrations when considering relationships-- or not.

Enlarge especially the first photo of the two damselflies for the faces. Very cute. The [Damselfly] link gives more information on them. If I'd hung around longer, it appears it'd have gotten even more interesting to photograph. Then again maybe they needed privacy from potential predators to get on with it. I had played paparazzi long enough.