Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic

In Esther Perel's insightful, beautifully written book Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic, out in paperback this month, she argues that we have lost sight of the critical balance that makes a relationship great -- intimacy and distance. In her private psychotherapy practice in New York, she's seen too many couples wrapped up in our workaholic, kid-focused culture; the true loss, she argues, is sensuality and pleasure -- vital ingredients to a life well-lived.

Her seemingly paradoxical argument -- that less togetherness can lead to more intimacy -- has been a global hit. Mating in Captivity has been published in the United States, Spain, Italy, Germany, Canada, France, Norway, Sweden, Taiwan, Brazil, Israel, Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, and it will soon be available in Greece, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Turkey. AlterNet caught up with this global traveler long enough to ask a few questions about her vision for more satisfying partnerships. Her answers are telling, but perhaps even more refreshing is that she embodies her message. Esther is playful, thoughtful, sexy and thoroughly independent. See for yourself ...

Courtney Martin: Tell us about a defining moment that led to the writing of this book.

Esther Perel: At the time of the Clinton affair, I was intrigued at how adultery could become a matter of national political agenda in the U.S. Why was it, I wondered, that this country seemed quite tolerant of divorce, and rather intolerant of infidelity, when the rest of the world had traditionally been more tolerant of infidelity and less so of divorce? Around the same time I was at a national conference on couples therapy and, there too, I was struck by the overemphasis on pathology and the lack of any mention of the words pleasure or eroticism when addressing a couple's sexual life. The claim that sexual problems were always the result of relational problems, and that one should fix the relation and the sex would follow, did not bear true for me. I saw loving, caring couples whose desire was flatlined, not resulting from a breakdown in intimacy. So I began to question a host of assumptions pertaining to sexuality and intimacy in long-term relations that were spoken as truths; they seemed unexamined to me.

Martin: You argue, brilliantly I might add, that the conditions that create intimacy -- closeness, familiarity, constancy -- are actually diametrically opposed to those that create desire -- distance, novelty, spontaneity. Why does such a fundamental point seem like such a shocker to us in the 21st century? Have other theorists argued this, and we've just missed it?

Perel: I think the confusion stems from the tenacious hold that the romantic ideal holds for us. It states that there is one person with whom we can have it all. We will experience a state of completion where we lack nothing. That myth of oneness then leads us into contracting a host of contradictory feelings and human needs into one mold. The ever-so-thoughtful psychoanalyst Steven Mitchell, in his book Can Love Last, argues this point as well. So does Roland Barthes and others.

Martin: What is a peer marriage, and why might it not be as ideal as one might first assume?

Perel: A peer relationship is one where the partners experience an affectionate, companionate coupledom. They are friends. They are the product of the egalitarian model; they are good life partners, but are often less sexual. For many people this alone is quite an achievement, so I would never put it down. But I also think that there is another dimension of life we seek and that goes beyond the management of our everyday life. People want to experience transcendence, mystery, awe, the passionate side of life, the erotic, that which inspires a feeling of aliveness, of vibrancy, of vitality, and that is another dimension of life altogether.