Emotional Fidelity II, the Inside Game

In Part I, I argued that there were things married partners could do outside their marriages to increase the chances of emotional intimacy within their marriages. It was complicated, but it wasn’t that hard to write. In this one, I am going to try to say that emotional fidelity within the marriage is the richest and best sharing of the “within-most” of the partners.[1] And when I am done impaling myself on that stake, I am going to try to say that there is a third thing—a kind of setting, an agreement, a commitment—which represents what the relationship needs. The simple way to say it (this is the only simple thing about it) is that “it,” the relationship, has needs that are not identical to his needs and her needs.

It is worth remembering that our word intimacy is built from the superlative form—the “best” in good, better, best—of the Latin intus = within. What is “intimate” in this understanding is what is “the very most within” part of us. That might seem incontestable, particularly since I backed into it from the etymological side, but it is not. The crucial question it covers over is this: does “us” mean you and me, taken as individuals or does it mean “us” as a couple?

This is actually a familiar problem in grammar. “Within,” in the context of a person, means within the person. “Within,” in the context of a group of persons, means “among the persons. It is something that is “within” all of them, not “within” each of them. Following that clue, it makes sense to look for a “within me” kind of intimacy and a “between us” kind. So I will.


Let me just drop a small scheduling item here. Even starting with the solutions (that is plural because there is one for him and one for her and one for them) is going to make this too long for a blog. I’m going to try the his and hers solutions here and work on the “their solution” later. I hope not too much later.

And two small reminders of context. The first is that we are considering emotional intimacy within the context of a marriage. I’m not denying that it can occur elsewhere; I’m just more interested in marriages. Second, I am defining emotional fidelity the same way I defined sexual fidelity: doing whatever you can within the relationship to bring about the most robust and mutually satisfying intimacy between the partners.

The classic dilemma in American marriages is that the wives want to be more intimate than the husbands do. I don’t think that’s true, but let’s play with it a little. We’re going to need a practice couple. I’ve got Albert and Sally here.[2] The job today is to solve their problem formally, i.e., not practically.

In the marriage described above, Albert will begin by feeling intruded upon. Sally wants to get closer to him than he wants her to be. Whatever he is going to do, it is going to have to be something he can begin to do while he is still feeling intruded upon?


Albert’s Problem


The first thing Albert might think of is just to tough it out. Just get through it. This is particularly true if it is early in the relationship and she is seeking romantic intimacy and he is seeking erotic intimacy. That is one of the many good reasons not to seek erotic intimacy early in the relationship, by the way. It complicates something that is already pretty complicated. In any case, Albert puts up with what feels like emotional intrusion by Sally, thinking either that it is worth it or that there is no need for him to admit that what Sally wants from him seems genuinely bizarre.

Toughing it out won’t work. Sally will know she is not achieving the intimacy she desires and will try harder. Albert may think he did pretty well in getting through the first round, but he really should know more about tournaments that that. The later rounds require a considerably better game than he put up in the first round and he's not getting good coaching.

The next thing Albert will do is to blame her for wanting more than she should want. Wanting “more of me,” he might say, or, if he watches TV, “violating my personal space.” This won’t work either, of course. She is not going to start wanting something different because he disapproves of what she wants. And Albert almost certainly misunderstands what she wants—there isn’t a guidebook, you know, and if there were, he wouldn’t have read it. Too much time watching TV.

So step one for Albert is this: find out what she wants. Sound easy? Try it. Try it, especially, beginning from Albert’s feeling that Sally is intruding on his rightful self-space. To start down this road, Albert will have to be willing to admit that he doesn’t really know what she wants. She is speaking a language that is, at very best, a second or third language to him and he is missing some of the grammatical fine points. And the next thing Albert must do is to stop blaming her for the fact that he is feeling intruded upon.

Two really hard things, just to start with. But it gets worse, so let’s go on. In Step 3, Albert needs to let her into this space (which he has maintained very carefully since adolescence or before), trusting her not to do any damage. But, of course, she will do damage, because she’s never been in there before and doesn’t know what she’s doing—so far as this particular man is concerned—and she’s going to hurt him. At that point, Step 4) Albert is going to have to say that it hurts. Sally will be offended, but there is no help for that. Albert is going to have to say that it hurts (or was uncomfortable or scary or however it occurs to him to characterize it) without blaming her. He will also have to be open to the idea that he might get used to this and then come to like it and then come to take it for granted. If it gets to be a really good experience for him, Albert can always remember that it was his idea originally.

Sally’s Problem

Four really hard things already and I am calling these the irreducible minimum in the first steps department. Now let’s look at Sally’s problem. Assuming, still, that she wants to be “closer” than he does, Sally is going to move in to “just the right distance.” When she does, Albert will move away because she is “too close.” Sally’s feelings are going to be hurt by his moving away from her. And right then, when she is feeling hurt, she is going to have to do two really difficult things. She is going to want to push even harder for what she is calling emotional intimacy because she has not yet achieved it. She is not going to wonder why he keeps pulling away; she is going to keep on trying to achieve “the closeness we both want.” Hard thing number one: Sally is going to have to stop that.

The second thing Sally is going to want to do is to blame Albert for not wanting to be emotionally intimate with her. That’s not the right thing either although it will be immediately satisfying because it reaffirms the rightness of what Sally wants and establishes the wrongness of Albert's response to her. So hard thing number two is: Sally is going to have to try to understand, rather than condemn. That’s always hard to do, particularly when you are being held away from an intimacy you think is only right, but for Sally, nothing else will work. Besides, there will always be time to condemn after she understands him. Or to mark up helpful articles from self-help magazines and leave them on his reading table or on the back of the toilet.

Let’s pause to note the symmetry here. Sally’s job is to find out what Albert doesn’t want. In finding out what Albert doesn’t want to happen, Sally will have to forego further and more extensive efforts to achieve emotional intimacy. He can’t just tough it out; she can’t just push harder.

The second thing Sally will have to do is to forego blaming Albert for pulling away. It’s obvious that blaming him isn’t going to help him stop doing what he is doing and it isn’t going to help her understand why he is doing what he is doing. So steps one and two are, again, obvious; but doing what is obvious when you are feeling rebuffed and humiliated isn’t easy.

In Step 3, what Sally needs to do is to take as much as Albert can freely offer, trusting him to give more when he can. Sally needs to cherish everything Albert offers, every token of his emotional self, and let him know how valuable it is to her. Sally will want to say, “how valuable even this small part of him” is, but she is going to have to find a way not to say that part. Even under those circumstances, Albert is going to be reluctant to trust her and give more of himself because where she wants to go—into his intimus—hurts sometimes and he doesn’t know if he’s doing something wrong or if she’s just clumsy or if emotional intimacy is a bad idea. “That’s why,” says Lord Peter Wimsey, in only a slightly different context, “there are men’s clubs and that’s why they’re popular.” [3]

Furthermore, since this is Step 4, Sally is going to have to say that she wants more intimacy than Albert was able, even in trying his best, to provide. Sally will have to admit that it was not enough for her, that it was not what she really wanted. She will have to do with without blaming Albert and she will have to remember that what is “too little” now, may become in time, just the right amount.

Precipitous Conclusion

So this is what Albert should do, and not do, and this is what Sally should do, and not do. Is this a solution? Not even close. It is something really good, however. It is the direction in which all the solutions like—his and hers and eventually, theirs—and pursuing these first steps will help them take other steps.

This may not seem like much to you, but let me point out what has already been achieved. Albert has rejected the strategy that came first to him (it wouldn’t have worked for long anyway) and has refused to blame Sally although she is, in fact, the proximate cause of his discomfort. He has committed himself to learning what she really wants, knowing that when he learns it, it will be in her language, not his. He has chosen to say honestly that it makes him uncomfortable. He has forgiven her for the discomfort she has given him, knowing that it is inevitable if the relationship is to flourish, and he has allowed the possibility that the feelings he now has, which are uncomfortable, might become comfortable if he can adapt himself to them. Albert is a hero.

Sally has rejected the strategy that came first to her (for the same reasons Albert did) and has refused to blame him although it is he, in fact, who is refusing her what she wants and which she really feels would be best for them both. She has committed herself to learning both what he really wants (“respect” is going to come in there somewhere) and why he pulls away from her. She has committed herself to receiving graciously what Albert feels he can afford to give her and she has let him know she is grateful. At the same time, she has honestly said that it is not enough. And she has forced herself to look clearly at the possibility that in time, it may come to be enough for her, if she can adapt herself to them. Sally is a heroine.

Al and Sal, having done these things, have headed down the road to what I am calling “emotional fidelity.” The one with the greater intimacy needs (Sally, in the example) has not blamed, but has treasured her husband’s need for “integrity.” The one with the greater integrity needs (the Albert, in the example) has not blamed but rewarded his wife’s needs for “intimacy.” They are not whole or perfect human beings, but they have achieved emotional fidelity.

These few steps are, one more time, the road that leads to the solution. They are not the whole solution although just these few steps go beyond what I have seen in many marriages. Besides, the most fundamental and necessary human understanding is that the world other live in is not the same as the world that I live in. These others are not delusional, as I first thought; they are just different from me. And, furthermore, they have the same problem with me that I have with them. This one understanding is monumentally important and it isn’t about being married; it is about being human.

Teaser

The next shot to be fired will be about a solution to “their” problems. What is emotional intimacy for Albert and Sally is like a garden that both tend. That’s an analogy my friend Sharon likes. The garden has needs that are not Albert’s needs or Sally’s needs. The garden is an “it,” just as the intimacy of their marriage is an “it.” Whatever Albert and Sally might like, the garden needs to be watered and weeded and fertilized and all that. And if they serve it well, it will serve them well.

Or, to use another analogy, is there a kind of emotional intensity that is exactly the fuel their particular marriage runs on best? Is there a way of acting that either balances Albert’s need for integrity with Sally’s need for intimacy? Or is there a way that transcends both integrity and intimacy, as they understand it, and that takes them as a couple to an entirely new area where they become people they are only learning they can be?

[1] So by “emotional fidelity,” the analog to sexual fidelity, I am going to mean doing the things that will identify, pursue, achieve, and sustain the best and most satisfying emotional intimacy possible between these two particular people. “Best” is different from “most.” My view is that “most” is not always “better,” but that “better” really is always better.
[2] Just to be clear, Bette has a sister Sally and this is not her.
[3] Lord Peter didn’t mean strip joints. He means clubs for gentlemen where everyone keeps just the proper distance and where no one intrudes.