Though it may be difficult to see, we have a serious self-esteem problem in our society. We are, in short, either taught that we don’t exist, taught to hate ourselves, or some combination of the two. Most people you see walking around on the street don’t feel worthy of love. And this seems to be a matter of self-love, or the lack thereof.
If we are lacking self-esteem—a problem so pervasive as to be invisible—we are going to have a lot of problems in relationships. This can account for much of our stuff around jealousy. For example, if we need a relationship to know that we exist, then we will naturally feel that our existence is threatened if our partner so much as smiles at someone else.
If much of our trip in relationships is designed to cover up a lack of real self-awareness, we are adding several dense layers of complication to finding out who we really are. It would seem that the real solution to our relationship stuff, our jealousy, our loneliness, and many other factors, is to figure out who we are, enter a conscious relationship with that person, and then take that into our relationships with others.
In other words, we need to get to the place where the most honest relationship we have in the world is with ourselves, and then let that overflow into our encounters with the people around us—not forgetting in what order these things happen. Unfortunately, we are taught to have relationships with ourselves that are based specifically on denying and deceiving ourselves. This is a sad state of humanity, but one that could be easily addressed—if we were somehow relieved of the fear to look within.
And a lot of other kinds of fear. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, during his first season in office, he hired the Heritage Foundation to lobby Congress for something called abstinence-only sex “education.” This is a program, taught in public schools and elsewhere, that indoctrinates kids to remain abstinent until heterosexual marriage. Kids are taught that birth control does not work. Masturbation and homosexuality are not mentioned. It is direct-denial sex education. You pay to have this taught in public schools.
We now have a whole generation—more, really—of people who were raised with this influence. Before we can start to address the damage, we need to figure out what it is. That is going to take a while, and it’s going to take some deep introspection when that is usually the last thing on our minds. To do this, we’re going to need to talk about sex, something that most of us are poorly equipped for, and generally embarrassed to do.
Usually, this process starts with getting people freaked out about masturbation. While this form of sex has never had too much respect, early in the 18th century, it was turned into the combination of a disease and a moral blight. Around 1712, a book called Onania packaged up all of society’s misgivings about self-given sexual pleasure and proffered them with a degree of marketing genius. The book was really an infomercial for the author’s snake-oil cures for the “disease,” but somehow it became a classic, making its way from London’s Grub Street to the height of European society.
The ideas stuck, and persistently plague us to this day. What could have been a source of introspection, learning, and self-fulfillment was turned into an attack on nature and self-awareness.
Many of our relationships today are based on a lack of individuality and missing sense of existence. We rely almost exclusively on “one special other” as a source of fulfillment. Many people are desperate for sex or feel trapped because masturbation is lonely, unfulfilling, and supposedly shameful. It did not start that way; it was made that way. Imagine if we could turn that around; if we could (on a culture-wide level) make masturbation hot and satisfactory, and then start our partnerships from a solid, level place, and then seek out one another to share from there. It would be a whole different world. We’re not in that world yet, but we can surely get there if we want.
What would Lincoln say?
One of my many ideas for films and novels tells the story of the wife of an extremely wealthy, well-connected corporate executive. He’s an absentee husband, and, day after day for years, he leaves her stranded in this huge suburban house without any money or the ability to travel. He does whatever he wants; her credit card has a $500 limit. It is a kind of “passive” abuse, and it goes on for a long time. She is basically his prisoner, trapped in a 16-room mansion, supervised by maids who come in to spy on her and report any suspected transgression. Finally, one day she gets sick of it.
She calls up a local lawyer she finds in the phone book and says she wants to file for divorce. Hubby has assumed no such plan would ever work because he and his lawyers are so powerful in the legal community. She has no money, but he’s rich enough, so she figures her case is worth taking; but the real reason the lawyer takes her case is because it’s interesting.
They go through the usual divorce route in state court, but his powerful lawyers, with their connections all over the legal system, do a great job of stonewalling her. They use various tactics to create delays, stop the paperwork, and fight her pleadings on every possible level. Finally, it becomes obvious they are not going to get a divorce by the normal route. And why is he doing this? There could be many “reasons”—mainly, though, it’s because he is a control freak. It’s just the kind of guy he is. And to think, he seemed so charming.
Her lawyer, a young woman recently out of law school with training in civil rights issues, comes up with a novel legal theory. She brings a divorce suit in federal court based on the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery. They argue that the marriage contract (that is, the state marriage license), as written and as it’s being applied in this case, is equivalent to a form of illegal servitude and that her constitutional rights are being violated. This is laughed at by his lawyers and in the media—it’s considered a legal absurdity. Indeed, there is a vicious public backlash against their lawsuit.
To everyone’s surprise, however, the federal judge grants a trial—and then her divorce. He does nothing else; it’s all the relief they’ve asked for (she hasn’t even asked for alimony or damages; now it’s all strictly on principle). His lawyers, in response, rush into federal appellate court and manage to stay the decision; then they get it thrown out. Her undaunted young lawyer, in response, files with the United States Supreme Court, and after a long wait, with much attention, public abuse, and bantering on talk radio, they are granted certiorari: the Supreme Court will take their case.
Imagine the headlines in the New York Times: “Divorce Case Goes to Nation’s Highest Court.” Or the Wall Street Journal: “What Would Lincoln Say?” (Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves; the 13th Amendment came later.)
In her filings before the Supreme Court, our young lawyer questions the validity of the marriage license itself. It seems to have a flaw—there is no exit clause. Driver’s licenses expire or can be revoked; medical licenses must be renewed; trademarks and patents expire. Marriage is unique among them.
She also proves that, structurally, it puts women at a disadvantage to the extent of negating her existence, and is therefore inherently unfair to one of the parties. She mentions that how the contract has been applied is equally meaningful as what the contract says. And she argues that in all 50 states, marriage contracts basically say the same thing: all of which violates the 13th Amendment because one person is, in effect, taking possession over another person.
The court hears arguments in a packed, dramatic scene. A couple of months later, a decision is published that dissolves the woman’s marriage and, in the same gesture, declares all marriage licenses unconstitutional. Basically, they are all found to be null and void, and one morning everyone in the United States and its territories wakes up legally single. Not divorced—annulled. They can stay in their relationships voluntarily, or walk out the door if they want.
Voluntary forms of relationship
The parody here, if it’s not obvious, is on the fact that we are not really free in our relationships; or, rather, we are rooked out of freedom in our relationships by a bunch of cultural requirements and expectations that are highly subject to abuse. It is no great wonder that we are indoctrinated into compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory monogamy as part of this process.
We live in a world where nearly everything is an obligation, and when we express any form of voluntary desire or freedom, usually it is attended by guilt—or the people around us revolt on behalf of the status quo and try to keep us on the old path. But in truth, though they may do so, nobody has to lay the guilt trip on us: It just seems to materialize out of the ethers of consciousness.
We need some new models of relationship. We need ways to relate to one another in a loving and erotic context that allow for us to be individuals as well as to bond with one another. At the moment, our models of relationship call for significant, and I believe unnecessary, forms of sacrifice of individuality.
Everyone knows this, many people feel it distinctly as no form of relationship really seeming to work—but most people have no idea how to start the discussion. I think that this is the main thing that needs to happen—the conversation has to start. The place it needs to start is with people being honest with one another about their real needs in relationships.
The problem with this, of course, is that just about everyone fears that if they express their real relationship needs to partners or prospective partners, our relationships would fall apart or never happen. So in the partner game, you get a lot of mendacious activity: lies, secrets, and silence. In the dating game, you get a constant stream of public relations activity to make yourself as appealing as possible. Most people fear that if they are authentic, then they are unacceptable.
I have a different theory. Expressing your needs gives your partners or would-be partners something to work with. If someone has a clue what you need, maybe they will want to provide that or help you get it. Of course, maybe you will find out they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in doing so, which would be valuable information to have.
