John Gottman and Esther Perl have contrasting views. They both put forth interesting ideas that appeal. Perhaps there is some confirmation bias at play, you be the judge of what works for you, but be honest with yourself.
Gottman in his book “The Science of Trust,” says that the problem is not lack of distance and mystery, but lack of deepening intimacy.
“Intimate conversation, affection, and friendship are central to the erotic life of a long-term relationship. Maintaining a close, connected, trusting, friendship, and making sex a priority in their lives meant that these couples had good sex lives. Sustaining desire is not about having a bridge to cross, but building a bridge together,” says Gottman. Tthey turn toward each other‘s desires, says Gottman.
Perel talks about keeping a “comfortable distance.”
How you conceptualize the word “desire “ likely means that you’re going to prefer the ideas of Perrel or Gottman, possibly both if you can handle some cognitive dissonance.
For Perrell “desire” is wanting, longing, seeking, craving.
“The discrepancy-reducing pursuit of a goal,” to put it in romantic terms.
Gottman “desire” has to do with liking, holding, savoring, allowing. Exploring these moments together, noticing what it is like and liking it.
The Mating in Ccaptivity style of desire (Perel’s book) is higher adrenaline and inherently exciting.
We relish this kind of perpetual, scratch- relief cycle.
We like to want so much we can’t always separate the experience of wanting from the experience of liking.
(The author does not talk about this as an addictive cycle but it’s really bothering me as I’m reading it. ) Esther Perel is a good fit for the existing narrative that says, “spontaneous desire is the correct way to experience desire.”
The science of trust style of desire is lower, adrenaline, more celebration of sensation in context, a celebration of togetherness.
In the Gottman style, you stoke each other‘s fire. You arrive home from work cook dinner with your partner have a glass of wine while you took you feed each other strawberries you sit together and you savor everything.
In the Perel style, you come to your partner with the fire already stoked.
I know people who swear by one or the other.
I also know people are too exhausted to try either.
Imagine taking responsibility for both putting yourself in the mood and creating a context that is mutually satisfying. You work as a team to keep the desire and create an on-going context of lower stress, partnership, emotional safety and desire. You talk about what individual factors are at play for your desire. Then you follow through with what was requested. Then you briefly talk about what worked well and what didn’t. You’re building your teamwork around something you both value but can’t achieve alone. Your pleasure matters to your partner and to you.
There’s no one true way to desire, even though you probably want to try on both.
Both our strategies for accomplishing the overall goal of increasing activation of accelerator, while simultaneously decreasing the brakes.
Passion does not happen automatically in a long-term, monogamous relationship.
Passion does happen as long as the couple takes deliberate and conscious control of the context.
Is your context, creating closeness, or creating space? A mix, perhaps? Dynamic and fluid, with good communication and asking for what you need?
When you believe or tell yourself that there’s something wrong with you, your stress response kicks in.
When the stress response kicks in, interest in sex evaporates for most people.
Insisting that spontaneous desire is the only normal desire is also insisting that a healthy person with responsive desire is sick.
Repeat it enough and you are brainwashed into believing it.
The myth makes people sick.
When you believe it, suddenly, it has power over you.
RSS Feed
