Review: The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity by Esther Perel

Our partners do not belong to us; they are only on loan, with an option to renew—or not. Knowing that we can lose them does not have to undermine commitment; rather, it mandates an active engagement that long-term couples often lose. The realization that our loved ones are forever elusive should jolt us out of complacency, in the most positive sense.

I wouldn't recommend this book to everyone because I think what it has to say is truly revolutionary. If you aren't okay with opening your mind to culture-defying concepts and diving deep into the taboo, you probably won't enjoy Perel's musings on infidelity. But if you are interested in exploring a potential shift in sociology and examining the often shameful parts of the human psyche, this book is life-changing.

I've been dipping my toes into nonfiction as of late, but have been struggling to find a book that doesn't suffer from repetition or obvious, surface-level conclusions. I wanted one where the author was truly presenting something new, making genuinely original observations. The State of Affairs does just that. More than a compilation of clients' stories, Perel's work pulls from academic sources and draws conclusions on a sociological scale, both in the modern day and historically.

The first chapter that signaled to me that I was reading a masterwork was 'Chapter 3: Affairs Are Not What They Used to Be' . Here, we get a breakdown of the concept of marriage and hear an explanation of infidelity's former role in it.

'Because marriage was a political, economic, and mercenary event, many people believed that true, uncontaminated love could only exist without it.' — Stephanie Coontz, historian

The shift in the purpose of marriage has caused a shift in where love is meant to be harbored.

First we brought love to marriage. Then we brought sex to love. And then we linked marital happiness with sexual satisfaction. Sex for procreation gave way to sex for recreation. While premarital sex became the norm, marital sex underwent its own little revolution, shifting from a woman's duty to a joint pathway for pleasure and connection.

This historical context seems positive—bringing love and sex to marriage, what could possibly be wrong with that? But Perel expertly links this 'revolution' to the dark force it hides within it:

Individualism began its remorseless conquest of Western civilization. Mate selection became infused with romantic aspirations meant to conquer the increasing isolation of modern life.

Now, marriage is meant to solve all problems, serve all meaningful forms of connection. And that is too much pressure to put on one union. The sense of hyper-individualism on a societal scale has encouraged hyper-dependency within the household. Because we now so often feel alone, we demand parts of our partner that are not ours. If we have no one else with which we may share pieces of ourselves, then it feels like we must share it all with the one person with which we can.

Do we expect our partners' erotic selves to belong entirely to us? I'm talking about thoughts, fantasies, dreams, and memories, and also turn-ons, attractions, and self-pleasure. These aspects of sexuality can be personal, and part of our sovereign selfhood—existing in our own secret garden. But some people view everything sexual as a domain that must be shared... From another perspective, however, making space for some degree of erotic individuality can convey a respect for privacy and autonomy, and is a token of intimacy.

One might argue that this concern for individualism only exists in a Western context, and they would be correct. Luckily, Perel doesn't strictly examine the issue through this lens. 'Chapter 8: To Tell or Not to Tell?' provides a cross-cultural analysis of the moral value of 'honesty'.

While Westerners consider honesty a moral absolute, collectivist cultures place it lower on the moral hierarchy. If the truth would shatter the family, the most important totem of this culture, it would be wrong to tell it. To Westerners, this seems crazy. Individuals have the right to know everything. They have the right to make their own informed decisions. In terms of righteousness, truth trumps all. But this is simply a matter of perspective. To a collectivist, it would be irresponsible to let a detail slip that would ruin lives and reputation.

To close out this review, I want to highlight Perel's final conclusion. It seems simple, but in order to get to it, one has to allow themselves to open up to taboo admission. For example, we are all attracted to transgression. In a marriage or relationship, we do not magically become blind to the strangers around us. A union does not fully erase the individual. But that does not mean this union isn't valuable or worth fighting for.

The ongoing challenge for steady couples is to find ways to collaborate in transgression, rather than transgressing against each other or their bond.

This concept sounds simple, but in practice might not be so easy. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore it. It's a puzzle. It's a game. It could be fun. And even though you're two separate people, you're in it together. You're the players.