I have been thinking about security lately, not in an Ashley Madison hack kind of way, but the way we seek security in romantic relations and what we gain — and give up — to have it.
It was spurred by watching Vicky Cristina Barcelona again, the 2008 Woody Allen movie that explores the very human struggle between security and passion, dependency and freedom.
Can we have it all? 
If you haven’t seen the film, in brief, the 20-something Vicky and Cristina are friends spending the summer in Barcelona with Vicky’s parent’s friends, Judy and Mark, and end up in a complicated love triangle of sorts with a seductive artist, Juan Antonio, complicated even further when his former wife, Maria Elena — a talented and tempestuous artist whose passion excites and destroys — reappears.
The no-nonsense Vicky is about to marry a New York lawyer whose bandwidth doesn’t deviate much beyond business, golf and buying a house in Westchester. The free-spirited Cristina is seeking something much more than that, but she’s unsure of exactly what she wants; she just knows what she doesn’t want. Cristina jumps at the chance for adventure when Juan Antonio approaches them in a restaurant and invites them for a weekend of sex, food and wine on a nearby island — “Life is short, dull, full of pain,” he tells them — and then, shortly after, moves in with him and indulges in a hedonistic life, including threesomes with him and Maria Elena. The one passionate night Vicky spends with Juan Antonio is enough for her to realize what she’ll be giving up by marrying her safe but boring fiance. For perhaps the first time, she lies to him.
It’s easy to see things are probably not going to end up well.
But, you have to define “well.”
WARNING: Spoiler alert.
Forget Juan Antonia and Maria Elena — their passionate “can’t live with you, can’t live without you” relationship will most likely never change. It’s what happens to Vicky and Cristina that matters.
Despite her lust-as-misplaced-love for Juan Antonio, Vicky marries her fiance. She settles for a secure, safe but passionless future even if there’s been a fundamental shift in her. She appears to be doomed to follow in the footsteps of her hostess — Judy no longer loves her husband and although she is cheating on him, she tells Vicky she can never divorce him. She, too, chooses safety.
Cristina, on the other hand, realizes that although she wants nothing to do with Vicky’s secure but boring future, she doesn’t want to continue to be swept up in the passionate insanity in the Juan Antonio-Maria Elena household, either. She leaves, unsure of what’s ahead but again clear on what she doesn’t want.
In the end, only Cristina, as untethered as she may appear to most people, chooses to live an authentic life.
Which gets me back to my original pondering, what we gain — and give up — for the security of a romantic relationship, especially marriage.
Besides love, which remains the No. 1 reason, many of us say we marry because we want life-long commitment (for heteros perhaps, but not same-sex couples). The promise of that gives us a sense of security, that someone will always love us and find us desirable, even at our most unlovable and undesirable, and will have our back. Except we know that it doesn’t always work out that way, and despite being a wonderful spouse and despite all the great things you do for your partner, you can’t affair- or divorce-proof your marriage. So marriage gives us a false sense of security that we will have what we want — or what we think we want — forever. Even when we don’t. Sometimes, divorce happens. Sometimes it doesn’t and while we may stay together and continue that history, we may no longer love each other or find the other desirable. All that remains is the commitment.
So, what are we giving up by buying into the “security” of marriage? Will we be living our most authentic life by seeking that “security”?
Well, I don’t have the answers and while you may not, either, those are the questions you might want to ask yourself before getting hitched, along with asking if you could be happy with commitment that didn’t last a lifetime. Many of us who have been in multiple loving relationships — live-in, married or not — have already experienced that. What wasn’t satisfying about that?
What’s your most authentic life?
Have the marriage you want by ordering The New I Do on Amazon, and, while you’re at it, follow TNID on Twitter and Facebook.
Loading tweets...
I can only express frustration at the childish and selfish aspects of the choices presented in this article. In my opinion, marriage is not a service that transforms fantasy into reality.
However, there seems to be no shortage of relationship advice that concludes somehow, no matter how morally corrupt one’s actions are, every choice is justified by personal desire or self-aggrandized awakening. This article doesn’t claim to have answers, though I am suspicious of the term ‘authentic life’ in this context.
Marriage is a choice people should only make when they want to build something greater than their individual selves. For some that might be a family with many children and for others a lifetime partnership of such dedication that it eventually involves aging into wheelchairs and hospice care together. Regardless, it is supposed to be a religious-like devotion to a way of life that doesn’t focus on selfish desires.
If your misgivings about becoming a married woman include worry over fulfilling selfish fantasies of passion or security then do yourself and your fiance a favor: call off the wedding and take some time to grow up. Men (adhering to cultural stereotypes) with fantasies about losing money, freedom, and sexual opportunities, or gaining a subservient housewife to raise children, should also back away from the altar.
First reach a point in life where you’re more interested in building something greater than yourself — giving rather than losing or gaining — and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for a successful marriage. If your ideal of an ‘authentic life’ doesn’t include sacrificing fantasy in favor of reality, then don’t get married and don’t complain that you just can’t find the right person!
Twitter: OMGchronicles
says:
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks so much for reading my blog and commenting although it’s clear the questions I present are disturbing for you.
In your words, marriage is “supposed to be a religious-like devotion to a way of life that doesn’t focus on selfish desires.” If that is your desire, then by all means, go for it. What concerns me is the “supposed to.” For most or history, marriage was not about devotion, religious-like or not, and more about property and inheritance. Which is in a way all about selfish desires – typically the selfish desires of the father, who owned the daughter and arranged for her engagement to a man who could further the family’s fortunes. from father to husband, who could legally beat and rape her. Who is exactly is devoted to her?
But, OK, in the last 200 years or so we’ve been marrying for love (in the western world; elsewhere, marriage is really different and rarely speaks to your “religious-like devotion.” Still, your vision of marriage “should” be about is your version of marriage — nothing more and nothing less. Many people who don’t chose to marry are building things much greater than themselves, too. In fact, they gave much more of their time, money and energy than married couples do (there are numerous studies that back this up; in fact, marriage has been called a “greedy institution”).
So, let’s get rid of the “shoulds” and focus on what people — married, divorced, single, widowed — are actually doing. You are right — I don’t have the answers because each of us must answer that for ourselves. That said, I believe we all should at least ask the question, and determine what will be their own authentic life — knowing that their are many authentic lives as we change and age.
Thanks for commenting.
Thanks for responding.
First, my post does not refer to arranged marriages or forced marriages or any of the terrible abuses of marriage as an institution to harm or enslave people in any culture throughout history. I wrote concerning the modern western (American) society that is likely the target audience of your article.
Second, yes, my first post solely concerns my opinions: the suggestion that people ‘should’ grow up and quit trying to define their ‘authentic lives’ through fantasies about passion and security. I would describe my response as frustrated though, not disturbed. As you’ve mentioned, people can build something for themselves through individual accomplishment. I would not suggest people must get married to have love, passion, wealth, security, children, or anything else.
In fact, that’s partly why I advise readers to simply avoid marriage in the first place if they’re conflicted over what fantasy they’ll lose out on or get out of marriage. These analogies aren’t great but my opinion is (roughly)… Don’t become a monk if you’re not willing to honor the religion’s edicts. Don’t enlist for military service if you’re not willing to follow orders. Don’t get married if you’re not willing to sacrifice fantasies for the realities and responsibilities of a lifetime of marriage.
It’s childish to make life defining decisions with an unrealistic expectation of guaranteed positive returns.
OK! I get it. You’re saying that as far as marriage is concerned there is no wriggle room. There is only one way to do it (and it’s “my way or the highway”?). So, even when both parties, having arrived at a point where no harm will be done (e.g. empty nest) and when altering the boundaries is freely agreed to, it’s STILL “morally corrupt”.
Puzzling to say the least. But, it all made sense when I saw the phrase “religious-like devotion”. Ah yes! The smug comfort of Supernatural Superannuation at work.
Vicky, I think you should offer Mr/Ms Anonymous a free copy of your latest book.
I wonder what he/she would say about Esther Perel (author of Mating in Captivity) who claims to have been married 5 (?) times……….. to the same man. I sincerely hope it wouldn’t be to recommend stoning or burning at the stake.
First, to be clear, I’m an atheist and therefore do not believe in any ‘supernatural’ requirements or significance of marriage.
Second, in this ‘my way or the highway’ scenario, marriage is something that both parties choose to participate in making it ‘their way’. If you don’t want to live in a legally defined religious-like devoted-for-life partnership where you sacrifice fantasies for reality, then as I suggested in my first post, spare yourself and your fiance the trouble and just don’t get married.
To expand on my original post, the words ‘morally corrupt’ refer to the many creative excuses people come up with to shirk all of the responsibilities they willingly accepted when entering into marriage or committed relationships with an expectation of fidelity and longevity. Breaking a promise, or oath, or contract, for entirely selfish reasons, is inherently immoral — that’s a universal theme in all cultures (to my knowledge).
Please invent an alternate contract, that has no implied lifetime duration, which applies appropriate legal responsibilities and potential penalties to each participant for a specified limited time (your example: until the nest is empty). Include an exit clause for every conceivable measurement of satisfaction. That could do wonders for anyone with fantasies about finding ‘security’.
Ah Mr/Ms Anonymous!
Amico/a mio/a, the tone of your riposte varies considerably from your original post.
You see, we are now in agreement, of sorts.
As fellow athiests we are both free to choose the life path we wish to follow.
You do, however, waffle on about broken oaths, promises & contracts leading to “morally corrupt” behaviour.
What part of the phrase “willingly agreed to” don’t you understand?
Also please explain how a renegotiated marriage contract is mutually exclusive with life-long longevity.
Call it waffling if you like but the article presents a set of examples making the comments relevant.
Vicky, the young bride to be, indulges her selfish desire for a passionate fantasy life and cheats on her fiance only to fear losing the security fantasy of married life enough (for now) to ultimately follow through with the wedding. In my opinion, her actions are immature and morally reprehensible.
Judy is cheating on her husband, also indulging selfish desire for ‘more passion’, but won’t leave the ‘security’ of her marriage. Her actions are also immature and morally reprehensible.
Maria apparently only exists in this story as an extension of Juan’s sexuality. Juan is the stereotypical strong character (though still immature in action) because he gets exactly what he wants. He is repeatedly rewarded by fulfilling the passion fantasies of random women as well as his own. He’s possibly predatory if taking advantage of his ex-wife’s lingering emotional attachment for self gratification (which would also be morally repugnant) and purposely seducing married and engaged women.
Which leaves Cristina who suffers no moral lapse in satisfying her desire for a passion fantasy life as she’s not ‘attached’. However, she ultimately decides the fantasy isn’t what she really wants (at least with Juan).
As the article explains, she doesn’t know what she wants. Although, unlike Vicky, she doesn’t want to give up the passion fantasy for the security fantasy.
So Cristina, who is supposedly living an ‘authentic life’ is really just another immature character in the story. Her strengths are the inability to figure out what she wants in life and unwillingness to make a long term commitment in the meantime. At least she has the potential to eventually grow.
——
As for concepts of open marriage where participants willingly agree to allow for affairs… In my opinion, it’s not really a marriage anymore at that point.
I don’t think anyone nor the article is advocating cheating. As far as what marriage is “supposed to look like” I think that’s the hot-button topic here. We’re arguing about whether one “model” of marriage vs. many potential models of marriage (“open marriage” among others) is more or less valid than the Judaeo-Christian “traditional” model. You are clearly coming from the uni-model version of marriage (marriage looks like “this”) and quite simply not everyone holds that opinion. We can all agree to disagree.
I think the difference of opinion here is if the agreement a couple makes in marriage is amendable or not. Legally speaking, marriage does not consist of any “vows” or “promises” period. The fact that many choose to have a separate religious ceremony (often on the same day when the legal marriage certificate is signed) where “vows” are spoken is immaterial at the legal level. Having said that, the real question is does a married couple have the right to consensually agree to change the “vows” or expectations of THEIR marriage? For many of us the answer to that questions is absolutely yes.
Provide your own security, and you can take advantage of the passion when it presents itself. And, afterwards you can walk away from it with no regrets and no lasting trauma.
Thanks Mike!
Trying to get thru to people with tunnel vision can be exasperating at times and in the long run is futile.
At officer training in the Australian army several decades ago we used to have a quaint term to describe a tactical plan with only faint hope of success: “Pissing into the Wind”.
The only thing you end up with is wet socks.