After reading a recent post on Psychology Today's website about a new David Cronenberg film, A Dangerous Method, I've got to go out and see it (and drag Jack along). The story is about a tortured doctor who struggles with finding the same passion at home that he finds with his aggressive, sexually driven patients.
The author of the post, a doctor himself, discusses how today's society often battles with this same predicament that the movie's Victorian-era character finds himself in. He asks, "Once you've built a home, a family, a life together, how do you make sense of the fact that the thrill is -- or seems to be -- gone? Can passion and security coexist? Or do we inevitably trade excitement for stability when we commit to someone?"
These questions are all good ones but need some addressing. The author asserts that our "basic human struggle" is to balance excitement with restraint and still retain the vitality of our erotic lives. However, with so many ways for married (or unmarried) couples today to express their sexual natures, I would have to disagree that this struggle is still inherent.
Today we have sexting, porn, Skype -- all ways to keep the so-called vitality alive in any relationship, even if you're hundreds of miles away. Sure, there may be the occasional husband or wife who doesn't want to taint the ideal image of their spouse, but that seems so 50 years ago, when women were either housewives or prim-and-proper secretaries. Now, men can see their wives as powerful (more women are breadwinners and CEOs of companies than ever before), rather than as just homemakers. Sure, there are always outliers and exceptions to every rule, but according to the majority, I would say this battle is less ‘"waged" than won.
What do you all think? Should couples be more wary about protecting their passion and their stability, or do they come hand in hand? I think in a good relationship they do. Of course, there are times when passion wanes, but that's to be expected with any long commitment.