All this stuff about how she is not better than Hilary etc. etc, is really silly. First, I doubt he really thought of his wife at all in that moment, and if he did, it was only as a negative force; his needy and nagging and draining and exhausting wife. But even that is too much; that would require some recognition of the fact that he was married and had made vows, and since that would be inconvenient, I think for the most part, that was dropped.
The only way in which the wife or husband factor into the equation at all, is that they arem, in a sense, the motor behind some of this (though not all. Something to be gotten away from. Suddenly you're not so sure; about all you thought you knew. The idea of sleeping with only one person for the rest of your life, maybe rightfully, quite terrifying. Your days of kicking up your heels and knocking a few back and banging boots with other women are over and this is not exactly what he thought he signed up for.
After Ms. Lewinsky hands over Vox and looks coy in her Gap blue dress (the one that would hold the tell-tale stain a few months later) I imagine Clinton had a bit of a pep in his step for the rest of the day. His feelings may not have been the stuff of Romeo and Juliette, but he felt an attraction nonetheless and he engaged in that attraction by flirting.
Think about it: do you think of fucking people you flirt with? Maybe once in a while, but odds are, you flirt without meaning. Some flirt on another level: in their head, they're already processing whether or not they could get this person into bed. Could I kiss him/her? How far would s/he let me go before s/he said, Stop. The game is this: if I wanted to, could I? And perhaps we all need this to some extent - to know that our stock is still high.
And though we do this for "validation," perhaps we fail to realize just how meaningless this is - it's not hard to get people into bed and basically, just because you can get someone to fuck you doesn't mean you are a good person or a great lover. Bad lovers get laid, ugly people get laid, losers get laid, murderers, unexceptional people of all stripes get laid. Getting someone into bed just for sake of knowing you can, validates only that. You can. Wow.
Article comments
1 - sadi
not sure what those symbols in there are. not in the original. anyone know what could be causing those? durrr!!
srp
2 - Phillip Winn
They're caused by a mismatch in character sets, which is in turn caused by MTAmazon's insistence on a certain character set. That's the technical cause, anyway.
TO avoid them, you'll need to eschew the use of "Smart Quotes" and other typographical niceties in your composing tool, which I'm guessing is MSWord.
3 - Mac Diva
Sadi, it is possible to do just about anyone, I suppose. I could probably seduce Andrew Sullivan, though I have no desire to. (His political views are atrocious.) But, I doubt the falling in love part.
I'm sorry to see the awful 'A' formatting problem is back. We had it licked for a while.
4 - Eric Olsen
A seductive and dangerous contemplation that ends well - ultimately it comes down to priorities and a profound connection vs. titilation and nonsense. Very brave and honest, and the conclusion - with which I heartily agree - is the more satisfying for having gone through the journey to get there.
I fixed the "A" erors bu tthe thought of going back and fixing all the posts that have been published since the "A"s disappeared is just too depressing to even consider. We've got to figure it out and get it fixed globally again.
5 - Bob A. Booey
I will go back and read this post later because it seems like an interesting intellectual diversion from the usual crap, but I just wanted to add the following comment:
No one on this site has the capacity to do anyone (much less everyone). I mean, let's be real. If you did, you wouldn't write on the Net so much. I can just tell that's not one of your respective skills, collectively. We'll play nice and call it sublimation or something, ok? Hell, maybe you could do each other? Somehow, I think MacDiva would be more likely to turn someone to the other team than convert anyone.
Sadi -- I will find the time to look over your recent posts and determine whether you are very crazy or very bright. Either way, you're different from the other writers on this site, which is good.
Toodles, poodles.
6 - Shark
hmmmm... should I try to finish my annotated edition of Ulysses -- or finish this trite, trivial, rambling, mindless piece of fluff?
Or better yet, would I prefer to drink hot bleach -- or maybe have my fingernails removed with a melon baller?
Life on BC is full of tough choices.
PS: I got far enough to learn that her husband is an "editor" who usually reads her work. Apparently, he was "working late" the night she cranked out this Opra-fied version of "On The Road".
Maybe a Cosmopolitan Quiz should have accompanied it:
"Are You a Flirt -- or an Adulterer?"
7 - Shark
Oh, by the way:
For those who were lured to this illicit meeting by the title -- and went away with a sense of frustration and an appointment with a cold shower, I recommend Lawrence Durrell's "The Alexandria Quartet" as the best fiction ever written on the subject of love, adultery, and the human mind.
8 - sadi
Durrell is indeed a great writer. no question about it. thanks for comments -didn't seem like something oprah would do to me, but then, i don't watch it so wouldn't know. alas.... as for very bright or very crazy, i hadn't heard that they were mutually exclusive. when did that happen? glad that you're reading though and thx. for all comments. always appreciated. controversy and free-exchange keeps the world a turnin' folks.
cheers,
srp
9 - Hannah Plunkett
I clicked on this link because the title intrigued me---I thought, perhaps, the author might have something interesting to say about the ways in which adultery can be written/represented in fiction.
What I get, instead, is a sort of fluffy, Ask-Aunt-Mamie read that does nothing but assume, I suppose, that all readers are playing some sort of elaborate game of Simon-Says, touching finger to nose, jumping when the book says jump. Perhaps the problem is that the author has not read enough. Not nearly, nearly enough.
There’s Paragraph 4, where the author goes off-topic to assert that there is a causal connection between pornography and rape because she knows that, at the rape camps in Bosnia, there were pornography photos on the walls. I can’t think of anything more dismissive and historically inaccurate than to imply that those horrible rapes were just rotten men acting out pornography scenes. Soldiers have been raping women, as part of their campaigns, for thousands of years, long before, I assure you, any of them could have been carrying a pocket-sized Hustler around with them. Military methods that use rape as a tool of fear and humiliation â€"lead†to rape. Mental illness â€"leads†to rape. Long-term isolation and reprogramming of social norms in soldiers â€"leads†to rape (we’ve seen this recently ourselves!) Cultures that essentialize women as weaker, purely reproductive/sexual bodies â€"lead†to rape. The author’s argument is a significant post-hoc/joint-effect causal fallacy.
Then there’s the author vacillating wildly between implying that she realizes that just reading about an affair doesn’t make someone necessarily HAVE an affair…and then implying, that yes, actually, it’s entirely possible that it does. I wonder. I’ve read a number of books featuring school teachers, but I’ve no desire to be a school teacher. My favorite novel, which I hate to put down, each time, stars a drug-obsessed college student and yet, somehow, I’ve resisted the urge to either become an opium addict, or return to undergraduate studies. My husband reads a lot of science fiction, but so far, he hasn’t tried to build a spaceship, nor does he think that he possesses magical powers. We are exposed to hundreds of stimulating scenes and words every day, that we do not â€"give ourselves up to.†In spite of the constant appreciation of/for lithe, athletic bodies (at the supermarket register, on television, in literature, in bars, at work, at school, etc), people still gain weight and buy chocolate ice cream.
But let’s say, for a mind-boggling second (and please, bear with me, I know it’s hard) that we agree that literature DOES have the power to â€"seed†affairs. Let’s really LOOK at the message that literature sends.
Madame Bovary is hardly about the garden-of-delights that bursts of adulterous passion may afford. Rather, it’s about the studied self-destruction of a woman confined by her era, by custom, by culture, to a stoic, colorless life that she cannot desire. Her meaningless, disastrous affairs, are merely one of a multitude of brilliant neon warning sign that the literary world provides us with---calculating the whims of human nature, of passion, the fickle heart. Indeed, Flaubert takes it one step further, by showing Emma as deluded by her novels, using them in a sort of mad search for ecstasy. Flaubert is mocking readers just like the author of this essay—who are easily besotted by the affects of novels, who think, for a moment, that these should supplant real feeling, real decisions, or that a novel is anything more than an excuse, or cover, for feelings and desires that already exist.
In Crazy Cock, Henry Miller’s exposition of his painfully erratic relationship with his second wife, June, can hardly be seen as urging others to experience the jealousy and suffering that affairs can cause (although, of course, his focus on the pull of love and desire are more positive/engaging.)
Graham Greene’s End of the Affair isn’t about the delights of random, extramarital sexual encounters. It’s a meditation on jealousy and suspicion, about the dark, clutching, possessive power of love…its consuming, and often vicious, hunger. It’s about an incapability to express or fathom love, and how one can become a mere shadow of self, firmly in the clutches of a hunger FOR passion, for love. If what one is pleased by, if what one is excited by, in this book, is a sex scene or two…then they are not only a terrible, terrible reader, but they were probably LOOKING actively, for that particular meaning/diversion in the text to begin with.
What we have is a case of self-selection. If I, as a person, find myself reading and attracted to reading, a lot of literature featuring hot passionate affairs, it should be a signal to me that there was something missing in my life or my imagination, some aspect of my desire that was not being fulfilled, some passion that I would like to experience, if only by reading about it.
Because each of these examples, weirdly, seems to be about the incalculable effects of human desire. In none of these selections does the choice, as the author of this article argues, â€"seem so easy…so romantic and like noone will ever get hurt.â€
I’m sure there ARE books that applaud the wild and sexy world of the affair, but it ain’t those books up there…so I don’t know what Ranson-Polizzotti was thinking when she chose to argue that one should temper one’s feelings about adultery after reading said novels. I think we’d all be in a pretty good place if we TOOK those authors’ feelings about adultery to heart.
The rest of the article is mindless, new-agey, bad-self-help-book meandering that is of absolutely no literary value. Much surprised to see such bunk posted here.
10 - Eric Olsen
Hannah, The essence of what I picked up from this is that art can be powerful and seductive and that we should be on guard, or at least aware of this, and not find ourselves acting out art in real life without due consideration. I found the logical thread here serpentine but internally consistent, much like the human brain when properly functioning.
11 - Shark
Hannah, nice work. You wrote what many of us were expecting to read when we saw the title of this entry.
(Maybe a distinction should be made between adultery in 'literature' and adultery in romance novels??)
Anyway, thanks again for doing a quickie on a few classics from the literary category.
PS: I would have done more on 'Alexandria Quartet', but it would taken years -- and probably ended up being a blasphemy.
12 - Mac Diva
Hannah, my mentor Richard Ford writes about adultery in his short stories and novels often and well. (Sometimes, I think too often.) If you are looking for a contemporary writer who captures the complexities and contraditions of that behavior, I highly recommend A Multitude of Sins and Women with Men.
In regard to classics, my favorite book about adultery has long been Henry James' The Portrait of a Lady. He gets the psychology of the characters so right.
Sadi, when I edit anything, from news stories to legal briefs to manuscripts, I am known for being merciless. So, with that in mind, you could have said what you are saying here in a more concise way. Doing so will often make one think more clearly about the message, which would may have prevented the failure to make coherent claims Hannah is concerned about.
13 - srp
thx. for all comments. right off, i don't know that there's a need to insult the breadth of what i've read (or for that matter, the many books i've published as an editorial director -- maybe you'd put Margerite Duras as "fluff" too. regardless, the point that was made was taken from another book, which i stated clearly, which is Adultery by Louise DeSalvo - and when i read her comments, it actually made me wonder. As for rape camps, you need not lecture me on that either as i've written a great deal on rape on pornography and know all too well what rape is about. do i blame hustler? absolutely not. and yes, i know what rape is "really" about -- but gee, thanks for the education, shucks.
don't presume to know what i've read, anymore than i would presume to know what you've read. disagree - fine. but you're not even disagreeing with me. you're disagrement is really with another book, as noted above. I took the basic premise and explored that - and to me, that's what it means to really consider a topic; and you'll note, i also said that a book can't make you do it, any more than a gun can force you to commit a murder unless you had that intent (and intent is the operative word here). The examples were merely as people have used books to set a certain stage - and that much, i stand by. is it something i do? no. and as for the "books on teaching" you've read etc etc., that's taking a point to an extreme and again, not at all what i said.
fine to disagree, but at least be clear about what it is that i'm saying inthe first place. if that's unclear,then fine. then that's my failing, though it seems that others got something out of it, and at the end of the day, i think they're looking at the piece in an entirely different way- not as literal-minded perhaps. in any event, disgree all you want, but there's no need to be so hostile, presumptive about who i am and what i do (because you don't know) or what i've read or how much.
my god,you might even be wrong. again, disagree all you want, but at least be clear about what you're disagreeing with. the final point is that no book can make anyone do anything - and that, love, is an argument against DeSalvo's point - that books can make you commit adultery. Can they set the stage - sure. but only for those who are willing.
Sorry you felt the need to be so hostile about it all, though. that's really uncalled for.
and thanks, Eric, for reiterating what it was i really WAS saying. Appreciated.
Cheers,
14 - Shark
Sadi, I think the "hostility" comes from crawling through your version of "War & Peace" and coming out empty-handed.
Time is precious, and frankly, I've read better essays from Junior High kids.
BTW: regardless of your own opinion of yourself, you do need some help with:
* brevity
* clarity of thought (isolating your essential POINT!)
* editing (rambling)
--which, btw, are all related.
Just tryin' to be helpful,
Simon C.
PS: Best of luck in the future.
15 - srp
thanks so much. i'll try and learn from you, and for that i am truly grateful, but i think the hostility pre-dates me.
and thanks for the good wishes. they seem to be already working - too many good things to list, apart from the cancer part, which truly blows, but over all, i'd say i'm doing pretty well. but thanks again, and take good care of yourself.
16 - srp
"This isn't to say that any of these books can force you to have an affair. It is absurd to claim, "The book made me do it," though there are people who have claimed such and will continue to. We've all read books of torrid affairs, read the Scarlet Letter and Sons and Lovers in high school and I doubt that it drove most readers to a sexual relationship, let alone an adulterous sexual relationship."
17 - Eric Olsen
I, too, am astonished by the hostility generated by this post, which is full of interesting ideas and writing, and is, at absolute worst, somewhat serpentine in its unfolding. I just don't get it - this is on a higher level than 90% of our posts, and perhaps that is where the "problem" lies.
18 - Mark Saleski
gees, i thought this was pretty danged interesting.
some of y'all been drinking too much coffee or something.
19 - Mac Diva
(Scratching head.) I don't believe I've been hostile to Sadi at all. I said the piece would be better if it were more concise and she expressed her claims with more clarity. Both are accurate. Most good writers get past thinking 'my every word is manna from Heaven,' relatively early. I'm surprised she hasn't done so.
20 - Eric Olsen
MD, I don't think any of the comments about hostility were directed at you.
21 - Hapax Legomenon
Perhaps the more interesting question is whether porn or erotic material can serve as a substitute outlet for the titillation and excitement that one might feel from an extramarital affair. Or whether "sanctioned infidelity" (swinging, orgies) can satisfy the need for the new, the flattering, the exciting (and whether the violation of marital boundaries only results in greater injury to the spouse). A new porn sites allows one person to screw a porn star while the loving spouse looks on. It is somewhat dehumanizing, but on the other hand, it's a way to get one's rocks off. Can people in committed relationships benefit from this demystifying of physical intimacy?
I don't mean to inject morality into all this, but I've always lived by this one principle: passion must not cause pain. Maybe I am just risk-adverse, but I can't afford to take any chances on friendship or romance. If a gesture or erotic act prevents this friendship/love from enduring to the end of my life, I shirk from it totally (though I may dwell on it in the caverns of the erotic imagination).
22 - sadi
then we are pretty much in agreement RJ on this one. I think as long as a thing is not kept secret and is not a betrayal there are many erotic avenues to be pursued between simply TWO people in a committed relationship. That's my own point of view but so far, it works for me. If something else works for someone else, then fine, as long as it's above board and noone gets hurt; i can't tolerate the justifications that in the end, are used to support a lie; if it were really okay, the offending partner would come home and announce whatever because it is so "okay" and "not a problem." the fact that they don't that they often sneak and lie etc. etc is all that needs to be said on the subject. if someone does nothave the courage of his or her convictions, then my feeling is, don't waste any more of my fucking time. i'm tired of excuses and frankly, if whatever - a piece of warm meat in a microwave is wanted over me - then so be it. go for it, but just don't tell me that you did it and thought it was okay and that's why you lied.
that insults my intelligence abnd that pisses me off. one cannot make an informed decision without all of the information - duh. and when someone lies to you about an infidelity they take away your AUTONOMY and then cry baby about their autonomy (my favorite argument of all). It's all crap, and if they don't know it, i do and it sounds like you do too.
You know where i stand on this; i've been on both sides and i know whereof i speak. in the end, any of this stuff is a profound waste of time and god knows, i've wasted enough time on it. i write about it to help others or to connect in some way, but that's it. as for personally, it's not a thing i will ever tolerate in my life ever again -- it's just that simple. no promises, no threats, just no and no and no and no.
amen.
sadi
23 - Hapax Legomenon
You're absolutely right; it's the lying and the feelings of betrayal that hurt the most (and that is very hard to repair). A certain amount of self-delusion exists in every relationship, and it can be hard to be open about one's weakness and admit that one's love for another is less than perfect.
Thanks for this provocative essay.