Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D.
10/02: OPRAH!
All you have to is say the name, and everyone stops in their tracks. It's true. I've done a lot of television in my time, but nothing, NOTHING, catches people's attention like her name. A week or so ago, I was on her program, she did kind of a potpourri called "Sex in America" and I was there to talk about my new book, Prime: Adventures and Advice about sex, love and the sensual years ( HarperCollins, 2007). I had the first two segments, then Gail Saltz ( a psychiatrist who usually is on the Today Show) was on , heading up a discussion of women's erotica, and the last two segments had a couple from Washington State talking about their polyamorous marriage.
The audience was supportive of me. We talked about dating after 40, and some pretty sexy topics, like the possibility of having "friends with benefits" in between committed or serious relationships. A few oohs and ahs, but no serious discomfort.
When several women in the audience talked in the third segment about their "stashes" of erotic material and the utility of porn for pepping up a sex life, no one got upset-in fact, everyone had a lot of fun with the topic.
But when the polyamorous couple came on, the mood of the group got a bit ugly- more so than you can see on the screen since the program was edited quite a bit since it ran over the allotted time. The couple, a fresh faced , average looked married pair, happily talked about their love, their child, their day to day relationship--and the wife's boyfriend.
This made just about everyone in the audience nuts-- and Oprah herself looked nonplussed.. She said something like" I pride myself on being open minded, but..."-- she just couldn't get her head around this one. When the husband mentioned that a typical night might be a dinner and discussion with a few people including the wife's boyfriend, culminating in the wife and the boyfriend going into the household's bedroom together, the audience erupted. No one could deal with it- including Oprah who kept a straight face but was clearly uncomfortable.
Oprah quieted down the crowd- because it started to look like the couple was going to be criticized by all sides and she didn't want to preside over a shark attack. She is a humane person, and this couple was looking like bait. But after it was all over, it was clear to me where America's sexual boundaries are: have all the fun you want if you are single, use a little bit of erotic material as long as it isn't compulsive, but stay away from the sanctity of monogamous marriage. I might even conjecture, that the crowd could have dealt with cheating in marriage easier than this 'open " concept where jealousy is absent and the usual territorial privileges of marriage are violated.
Where do I stand on this? I was uncomfortable too. Not because I think it's any of my business how two people conduct a mutually agreed upon marriage- but because it was hard for me to imagine that they weren't playing with fire-and that sooner or later the marriage itself would run out of juice and commitment with so much love and focus going elsewhere. I thought it might feel brave and refreshing now to them-- but it was hard for me to see how it would remain supportive of this family and this relationship.
I know. I know. There are many polyamorous people, swingers, and open marriages and many of them survive and thrive. But maybe its just because I'm older and I know how much it hurts to lose someone dear to you, that I think people shouldn't take chances with their marriage or relationship with someone they love. Love really is precious. And I would rather be more, than less, cautious in protecting it.
The audience was supportive of me. We talked about dating after 40, and some pretty sexy topics, like the possibility of having "friends with benefits" in between committed or serious relationships. A few oohs and ahs, but no serious discomfort.
When several women in the audience talked in the third segment about their "stashes" of erotic material and the utility of porn for pepping up a sex life, no one got upset-in fact, everyone had a lot of fun with the topic.
But when the polyamorous couple came on, the mood of the group got a bit ugly- more so than you can see on the screen since the program was edited quite a bit since it ran over the allotted time. The couple, a fresh faced , average looked married pair, happily talked about their love, their child, their day to day relationship--and the wife's boyfriend.
This made just about everyone in the audience nuts-- and Oprah herself looked nonplussed.. She said something like" I pride myself on being open minded, but..."-- she just couldn't get her head around this one. When the husband mentioned that a typical night might be a dinner and discussion with a few people including the wife's boyfriend, culminating in the wife and the boyfriend going into the household's bedroom together, the audience erupted. No one could deal with it- including Oprah who kept a straight face but was clearly uncomfortable.
Oprah quieted down the crowd- because it started to look like the couple was going to be criticized by all sides and she didn't want to preside over a shark attack. She is a humane person, and this couple was looking like bait. But after it was all over, it was clear to me where America's sexual boundaries are: have all the fun you want if you are single, use a little bit of erotic material as long as it isn't compulsive, but stay away from the sanctity of monogamous marriage. I might even conjecture, that the crowd could have dealt with cheating in marriage easier than this 'open " concept where jealousy is absent and the usual territorial privileges of marriage are violated.
Where do I stand on this? I was uncomfortable too. Not because I think it's any of my business how two people conduct a mutually agreed upon marriage- but because it was hard for me to imagine that they weren't playing with fire-and that sooner or later the marriage itself would run out of juice and commitment with so much love and focus going elsewhere. I thought it might feel brave and refreshing now to them-- but it was hard for me to see how it would remain supportive of this family and this relationship.
I know. I know. There are many polyamorous people, swingers, and open marriages and many of them survive and thrive. But maybe its just because I'm older and I know how much it hurts to lose someone dear to you, that I think people shouldn't take chances with their marriage or relationship with someone they love. Love really is precious. And I would rather be more, than less, cautious in protecting it.
Two weeks ago I was on the Today Show with David , the editor of Men’s Health. We talked about couple compatibility- specifically , whether Alpha types of people belonged together or whether Alphas and Betas might work out better.
In case you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about here, let me add some detail. Alphas are people who are hard driving, like being in the lead ( maybe need to be in the lead) and who tend to intense, ambitious, perfectionist and busy. Betas on the other hand, are less cranked up: they are more likely to have a job that is nine to five, and forget it when they leave the office. They are calmer, more laid back, more focused on enjoying life than optimizing career success, more likely to be domestic in orientation, or concentrating on internal growth than external praise.
So the As and Bs are really different, but does that mean they shouldn’t fall in love ?. Not necessarily. Sometimes an A needs a B to help them support the relationship since they may be rushing around so much that if they were with another A, no one would have the emotional space or time to remind each other that a relationship needs time and focus to prosper. So, not uncommonly a CEO ( male or female) will choose someone who is their back up rather than their double . Some Alphas reject another Alpha because they don’t want the competition (that they think will occur, of course it might not) or because they don’t want someone else’s plans derail their own. Others want a peer to take on the world with them- and that results in what the tabloids call “Power Couples:
We discussed that whole idea of Power Couples for awhile in this context. And of course Hillary and Bill came to mind- both what made them compatible (their obvious respect and reliance on each other for strategic planning and tactical support) and what might make them incompatible ( possibly Bill’s sexual tastes involving attractive Beta type women).
That’s where we ran into trouble with the scavenging media looking for on air tidbits. We caught the eye , most oddly, of Rush Limbaugh who probably has Hillary’s and Bill’s name perpetually on his search engine—and when this mention of them came up it must have been immediately hit his attack button and got filed into the Limbaugh folder of foder for Clinton bashing. Along the way, he decided that if David and I were talking about the Clintons we must be sympathizers and therefore , worthy of being pilloried as well. So Rush talked about “ what do journalists know” ( quite a bit , I say, but I do have a Ph.d.) and then strangely enough, he started making fun of my name—talk about people in glass houses!
I am not sure what really set him off- talking about A and B types isn’t a particularly provocative topic. My guess is that any even potential compliment to the Clintons made him have free floating aggression—and like any dog in a fight, just makes him want to attack anything nearby. A curious character and a strange way to make a living..
Anyhow, I think the topic of Power couples versus A and B partners or maybe just a couple of Betas happily putting family and each other first is a topic worth serious consideration- even if Rush Limbaugh gets a bit freaked out by the idea of egalitarian, ambitious partners. I like to think that maybe we can pair up differently in different phases of our lives- say we are As looking for another A when all we can think of is success or excitement or being awed by each other, As looking for Bs when we need some emotional grounding and someone to help us have a family, a life, a contemplative moment, Bs looking for As when they want someone else to create their firmament, and exert leadership, and Bs looking for Bs when its all about each other and nothing else.
Who knows how we will put our A’s and Bs together at any given time of our life. – but I do know that the As and Bs matter. We kind of need to get that down before we can even think of going on to C.
Pepper Schwartz, PhD
In case you have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about here, let me add some detail. Alphas are people who are hard driving, like being in the lead ( maybe need to be in the lead) and who tend to intense, ambitious, perfectionist and busy. Betas on the other hand, are less cranked up: they are more likely to have a job that is nine to five, and forget it when they leave the office. They are calmer, more laid back, more focused on enjoying life than optimizing career success, more likely to be domestic in orientation, or concentrating on internal growth than external praise.
So the As and Bs are really different, but does that mean they shouldn’t fall in love ?. Not necessarily. Sometimes an A needs a B to help them support the relationship since they may be rushing around so much that if they were with another A, no one would have the emotional space or time to remind each other that a relationship needs time and focus to prosper. So, not uncommonly a CEO ( male or female) will choose someone who is their back up rather than their double . Some Alphas reject another Alpha because they don’t want the competition (that they think will occur, of course it might not) or because they don’t want someone else’s plans derail their own. Others want a peer to take on the world with them- and that results in what the tabloids call “Power Couples:
We discussed that whole idea of Power Couples for awhile in this context. And of course Hillary and Bill came to mind- both what made them compatible (their obvious respect and reliance on each other for strategic planning and tactical support) and what might make them incompatible ( possibly Bill’s sexual tastes involving attractive Beta type women).
That’s where we ran into trouble with the scavenging media looking for on air tidbits. We caught the eye , most oddly, of Rush Limbaugh who probably has Hillary’s and Bill’s name perpetually on his search engine—and when this mention of them came up it must have been immediately hit his attack button and got filed into the Limbaugh folder of foder for Clinton bashing. Along the way, he decided that if David and I were talking about the Clintons we must be sympathizers and therefore , worthy of being pilloried as well. So Rush talked about “ what do journalists know” ( quite a bit , I say, but I do have a Ph.d.) and then strangely enough, he started making fun of my name—talk about people in glass houses!
I am not sure what really set him off- talking about A and B types isn’t a particularly provocative topic. My guess is that any even potential compliment to the Clintons made him have free floating aggression—and like any dog in a fight, just makes him want to attack anything nearby. A curious character and a strange way to make a living..
Anyhow, I think the topic of Power couples versus A and B partners or maybe just a couple of Betas happily putting family and each other first is a topic worth serious consideration- even if Rush Limbaugh gets a bit freaked out by the idea of egalitarian, ambitious partners. I like to think that maybe we can pair up differently in different phases of our lives- say we are As looking for another A when all we can think of is success or excitement or being awed by each other, As looking for Bs when we need some emotional grounding and someone to help us have a family, a life, a contemplative moment, Bs looking for As when they want someone else to create their firmament, and exert leadership, and Bs looking for Bs when its all about each other and nothing else.
Who knows how we will put our A’s and Bs together at any given time of our life. – but I do know that the As and Bs matter. We kind of need to get that down before we can even think of going on to C.
Pepper Schwartz, PhD
Technorati Tags: alpha, beta, Bill, Clinton, couple, dating, Pepper Schwartz, Hillary, marriage, Mens Health, Today Show, Rush Limbaugh, sex, types
If you have been following the Paula Zahn divorce story ( and who hasn"t!!) you might think you are just being besieged with the latest star gossip. And in fact, you would be right. Still, there is always some gold to be mined in them thar hills, and for me, it was the fact that one of the justifications for both the affair she was having and the divorce ,was the fact that the marriage had been sexless for quite a while.
This brings up two very interesting issues, I think. One- why do people stay in sexless marriages? and Two- if you are in a sexless marriage, does that give you license to go get sex elsewhere?
On the first point, there are of course a lot of reasons people stay in sexless marraiges. They stay because they are scared to leave, or they stay because the money is good, or they stay for the children ( or grandchildren) or they stay because they rather like their partner and they don't miss sex all that much. In other words, there are a lot of reasons people stay- and for some of them it is a sacrifice- and for others- well, not so much.
In this case, it sounds like Zahn may have stayed for some mixture of family and money-or maybe appearances- who knows-- but she certainly wasn't sacrificing sexual fulfillment. In fact, sex was so imporant to her, that she felt the need to chronicle it in a manuscript-- pretty cold, if you ask me, given that the chance of her husband eventually finding the story and getting the full picture, was if not one hundred per cent, pretty close to it. She probably was willing to have that happen-- but I suppose she thought that would be an issue for her' to deal with after the divorce settlement was over. Well, life has its little jokes with us- and she was published in house, before she was prepared to deal with the consequences.
The second question , whether or not a sexless marriage entitled her to have a tempestuous affair, is another matter entirely. I think you can take a moral stand and just say, " Of course not", but I do think there is something more interesting here to think about. If one is deprived of sex within the marriage, but trying to hold the marriage together for say, the sake of the children, let me ask this question: is staying together and being non monogamous a worse trespass than disrupting the home life of your children? The European model , at least classically, was that a man might have a mistress-- but he would not leave his wife or discard his kids. Is that more cruel and immoral than the American model where the man ( or woman) leaves their spouse for a newer or "better" model-and disrupts the home life of everyone concerned?
I would never make a categorical vote in one direction or the other-- each marriage has its own history and its own costs and benefits and what might be reprehensible in one situation might be understandable in another. I have known men who loved their wives, were denied sexual access to them, and refused to abandon their families - but maintained a separate sex life. I have trouble thinking of them as bad guys.
It does seem to me that if you demand monogamy, you better provide sexual interaction--otherwise that too is breaking part of the marriage contract--and if you break part of it- doesn't that open it up to further modification?
I know this is controversial but here it is: I think people should remain sexual in their marriage unless both people agree that sex is no longer interesting to either one of them. However, if only one person withdraws sexually, or both people with draw from one another, they should not be surprised- or even outraged- if their frustrated and rejected partner goes looking elsewhere.
The easiest solution: stay sexually interested and active with your spouse--and if sex starts to disappear-- go to counseling and find a way to repair your emotional and romantic connection. But don't expect a sexless marriage to stay traditionally monogamous forever.
Pepper Schwartz, Ph,D,
This brings up two very interesting issues, I think. One- why do people stay in sexless marriages? and Two- if you are in a sexless marriage, does that give you license to go get sex elsewhere?
On the first point, there are of course a lot of reasons people stay in sexless marraiges. They stay because they are scared to leave, or they stay because the money is good, or they stay for the children ( or grandchildren) or they stay because they rather like their partner and they don't miss sex all that much. In other words, there are a lot of reasons people stay- and for some of them it is a sacrifice- and for others- well, not so much.
In this case, it sounds like Zahn may have stayed for some mixture of family and money-or maybe appearances- who knows-- but she certainly wasn't sacrificing sexual fulfillment. In fact, sex was so imporant to her, that she felt the need to chronicle it in a manuscript-- pretty cold, if you ask me, given that the chance of her husband eventually finding the story and getting the full picture, was if not one hundred per cent, pretty close to it. She probably was willing to have that happen-- but I suppose she thought that would be an issue for her' to deal with after the divorce settlement was over. Well, life has its little jokes with us- and she was published in house, before she was prepared to deal with the consequences.
The second question , whether or not a sexless marriage entitled her to have a tempestuous affair, is another matter entirely. I think you can take a moral stand and just say, " Of course not", but I do think there is something more interesting here to think about. If one is deprived of sex within the marriage, but trying to hold the marriage together for say, the sake of the children, let me ask this question: is staying together and being non monogamous a worse trespass than disrupting the home life of your children? The European model , at least classically, was that a man might have a mistress-- but he would not leave his wife or discard his kids. Is that more cruel and immoral than the American model where the man ( or woman) leaves their spouse for a newer or "better" model-and disrupts the home life of everyone concerned?
I would never make a categorical vote in one direction or the other-- each marriage has its own history and its own costs and benefits and what might be reprehensible in one situation might be understandable in another. I have known men who loved their wives, were denied sexual access to them, and refused to abandon their families - but maintained a separate sex life. I have trouble thinking of them as bad guys.
It does seem to me that if you demand monogamy, you better provide sexual interaction--otherwise that too is breaking part of the marriage contract--and if you break part of it- doesn't that open it up to further modification?
I know this is controversial but here it is: I think people should remain sexual in their marriage unless both people agree that sex is no longer interesting to either one of them. However, if only one person withdraws sexually, or both people with draw from one another, they should not be surprised- or even outraged- if their frustrated and rejected partner goes looking elsewhere.
The easiest solution: stay sexually interested and active with your spouse--and if sex starts to disappear-- go to counseling and find a way to repair your emotional and romantic connection. But don't expect a sexless marriage to stay traditionally monogamous forever.
Pepper Schwartz, Ph,D,
08/21: NBC "Age of Love"?
I had an amazing week about two weeks ago. I was out promoting my new book, Prime, and, because it was about sexuality at mid life, sex was more or less a continuous discussion in my life every day. The book chronicles my adventures, and gives some advice, about sexuality when you first re-enter the dating world after a hiatus , in my case, a 23 year marriage.
I found a wide audience of people interested in talking to me, but it wasn’t just about the sexual and dating tips in the book. Many people shyly or sadly talked about why they didn’t re-enter the dating scene, why they still felt sexual, but why they didn’t want to chance going out again, looking for love or sex. It wasn’t a revelation. One of the reasons I wrote my part memoir, part advice book, was to inspire people to “ get out there” and reawaken their capacity for passion and love. However, after talking to people all week, it reminds me how burned and scared, and reluctant people really are to go and look for love and intimacy. What it clarified for me is that one of the more painful things that we don’t talk enough about is how many women and men just stop having sex because of their fear of rejection or the belief that a worthy partners is unattainable. Even responding to someone’s interest, much less looking for partner, is unthinkable.
I understand these feelings. I have had a divorce, I have lost partners that I desperately wanted, I am sure if emotional bruises showed, I’d be multi-colored. Still, and here is the important, caveat, there was always a brighter day, a new man, a fabulous night, and then, a serious relationship that replaced the old one in my affections, even if it didn’t entirely erase the memory of it’s disappointments.
What I think you need for love and sex is resilience: The ability to pick yourself up, dust off the dirt, take a shower, feel renewed and look for companionship again. Although it’s hard on the soul, I think what’s even harder, is a vacuum- no one who says you are wonderful, no one who holds your body as if it is precious ( and of course it is) and no one who brings you to ecstatic or at least happy emotional and physical release. I think those experiences, those feelings, are too precious to give up, even if it means having to go through some healing and some new exposure to pain.
But what is life about anyone? Did anyone promise us that everyone would love us and find us irresistible? As reasonably logical people, we know that we can’t be what every other person on the planet wants—and yet--- we do hope, that the person we want, wants us. When they don’t, it’s easy to dissolve in self pity, self loathing, or just safety- which we think, means romantic isolation.
But here’s something from my book , that might be helpful to you- it has been helpful to me. I call it my Pineapple theory. I don’t like Pineapple. There is nothing wrong with Pineapple- many people would pick it as their favorite fruit. I just don’t like it- but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s a perfectly worthy fruit for other people.
Well that’s one way to think about rejection. You may not be to someone’s taste-but that mean’s nothing about your goodness or attractiveness. You were just not what this person wanted. But someone else will think you are a peach.
Well, you say, easy to say, but I’ve been rejected more than once, it’s got to be me. Well, that’s something to think about- but it doesn’t mean you can’t find true love. It may indicate however, that you get involved too quickly with someone incompatible, or you systematically choose someone who is not likely to go for you. Look for a different category and you may easily find someone who adores you.
I know this is not an easy process. But putting your sexuality and romance and love and companionship is too high a price to pay for emotional safety. And I don’t think it’s necessary. I guarantee you that you can find love—but only if you look for it, and only if you correct course when one kind of approach doesn’t work for awhile. Yes, you need to be resilient, but no, you don’t need to be perfect. You just have to let yourself be open, vulnerable and loving. You don’t want to lose that part of yourself.
Pepper
I found a wide audience of people interested in talking to me, but it wasn’t just about the sexual and dating tips in the book. Many people shyly or sadly talked about why they didn’t re-enter the dating scene, why they still felt sexual, but why they didn’t want to chance going out again, looking for love or sex. It wasn’t a revelation. One of the reasons I wrote my part memoir, part advice book, was to inspire people to “ get out there” and reawaken their capacity for passion and love. However, after talking to people all week, it reminds me how burned and scared, and reluctant people really are to go and look for love and intimacy. What it clarified for me is that one of the more painful things that we don’t talk enough about is how many women and men just stop having sex because of their fear of rejection or the belief that a worthy partners is unattainable. Even responding to someone’s interest, much less looking for partner, is unthinkable.
I understand these feelings. I have had a divorce, I have lost partners that I desperately wanted, I am sure if emotional bruises showed, I’d be multi-colored. Still, and here is the important, caveat, there was always a brighter day, a new man, a fabulous night, and then, a serious relationship that replaced the old one in my affections, even if it didn’t entirely erase the memory of it’s disappointments.
What I think you need for love and sex is resilience: The ability to pick yourself up, dust off the dirt, take a shower, feel renewed and look for companionship again. Although it’s hard on the soul, I think what’s even harder, is a vacuum- no one who says you are wonderful, no one who holds your body as if it is precious ( and of course it is) and no one who brings you to ecstatic or at least happy emotional and physical release. I think those experiences, those feelings, are too precious to give up, even if it means having to go through some healing and some new exposure to pain.
But what is life about anyone? Did anyone promise us that everyone would love us and find us irresistible? As reasonably logical people, we know that we can’t be what every other person on the planet wants—and yet--- we do hope, that the person we want, wants us. When they don’t, it’s easy to dissolve in self pity, self loathing, or just safety- which we think, means romantic isolation.
But here’s something from my book , that might be helpful to you- it has been helpful to me. I call it my Pineapple theory. I don’t like Pineapple. There is nothing wrong with Pineapple- many people would pick it as their favorite fruit. I just don’t like it- but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s a perfectly worthy fruit for other people.
Well that’s one way to think about rejection. You may not be to someone’s taste-but that mean’s nothing about your goodness or attractiveness. You were just not what this person wanted. But someone else will think you are a peach.
Well, you say, easy to say, but I’ve been rejected more than once, it’s got to be me. Well, that’s something to think about- but it doesn’t mean you can’t find true love. It may indicate however, that you get involved too quickly with someone incompatible, or you systematically choose someone who is not likely to go for you. Look for a different category and you may easily find someone who adores you.
I know this is not an easy process. But putting your sexuality and romance and love and companionship is too high a price to pay for emotional safety. And I don’t think it’s necessary. I guarantee you that you can find love—but only if you look for it, and only if you correct course when one kind of approach doesn’t work for awhile. Yes, you need to be resilient, but no, you don’t need to be perfect. You just have to let yourself be open, vulnerable and loving. You don’t want to lose that part of yourself.
Pepper
08/21: Lies, Age and Dating
I was in Portland yesterday, speaking about Prime, my memoir of dating and restarting your sexual and emotional life in middle age. I was talking to about 75 women who ranged from forty something to the late sixties. They were members of a group called the Link for Women, a networking organization for working women who went to events to learn, get inspired and meet professional women like themselves for friendship and professional sharing. Looking out at them, I know my first thought was “What a terrific looking group of women”! They well dressed well groomed, mostly fit, and generally sexy. Most of them were there to hear about how to date online or other encouragements about meeting men and maintaining a sexual and romantic life.. While there were a number of questions asked during the Q and A period, I was struck by a question I have heard, from women and men, and thought about myself when it comes to online dating.. “Should I lie about my age?” Women who were 62 said they had better luck when they put down that they were 59. Women who were in their early fifties reported more men contacting them when they said they were 49….I couldn’t disagree.
Age. It’s the big question among mid- life and older singles. There is the stigma of being older, and there is also an odd reality: most people I have met who are over 55 think they are exceptional for their age and are looking for someone younger. Women are a bit more likely to look at men a few years older or a peer. But both men and women have prejudices about fifty plus partners: they think that after 50 people let themselves go, have too much baggage, or, a common phrase, “they won’t be able to keep up with me”. Of course, many of them just like the younger person’s looks—but they are less likely to admit to that…
Truly, people can “let them selves go” at any age. And while age makes it much more likely that people have added pounds, lost hair , or decided to party less, the fact is that these days many more people over 50 are keeping both body and soul in fine shape. The women I met in their fifties and sixties at this lecture were full of life, having fun and I could feel their energy and their optimism. I have also met so many men in their fifties and sixties that have remained athletic and engaged with life and work that it has made me want to write and tell both men and women to see the facts: age is a function of health and attitude and habits—to write fifty and sixty something people off as non competitive with people ten years their junior is simply not a wise idea. Fit and active fifty and sixty year olds should be the last ones to avoid each other!
I understand some of the hesitation. Women are afraid of having a man who will make them into a combination of nurse and maid rather than a partner. Men are worried that older women will not like sex as much as younger women and will be too traditional. These are fair hesitations- and in individual cases, might be true. But looking at this group of women, I knew that if there were no age prejudices- if people used other criteria to pick each other and just let age vary randomly-- many more women and men would find the person they were looking for among fifty and sixty year olds. And that would be the end of having to tell those little white lies about what age you “really” were!.
Pepper
Age. It’s the big question among mid- life and older singles. There is the stigma of being older, and there is also an odd reality: most people I have met who are over 55 think they are exceptional for their age and are looking for someone younger. Women are a bit more likely to look at men a few years older or a peer. But both men and women have prejudices about fifty plus partners: they think that after 50 people let themselves go, have too much baggage, or, a common phrase, “they won’t be able to keep up with me”. Of course, many of them just like the younger person’s looks—but they are less likely to admit to that…
Truly, people can “let them selves go” at any age. And while age makes it much more likely that people have added pounds, lost hair , or decided to party less, the fact is that these days many more people over 50 are keeping both body and soul in fine shape. The women I met in their fifties and sixties at this lecture were full of life, having fun and I could feel their energy and their optimism. I have also met so many men in their fifties and sixties that have remained athletic and engaged with life and work that it has made me want to write and tell both men and women to see the facts: age is a function of health and attitude and habits—to write fifty and sixty something people off as non competitive with people ten years their junior is simply not a wise idea. Fit and active fifty and sixty year olds should be the last ones to avoid each other!
I understand some of the hesitation. Women are afraid of having a man who will make them into a combination of nurse and maid rather than a partner. Men are worried that older women will not like sex as much as younger women and will be too traditional. These are fair hesitations- and in individual cases, might be true. But looking at this group of women, I knew that if there were no age prejudices- if people used other criteria to pick each other and just let age vary randomly-- many more women and men would find the person they were looking for among fifty and sixty year olds. And that would be the end of having to tell those little white lies about what age you “really” were!.
Pepper
07/09: My Pineapple Theory: Some Don't Like It But Someone Else Thinks You Are A Peach And Adores You
I had an amazing week about two weeks ago. I was out promoting my new book, Prime, and, because it was about sexuality at mid life, sex was more or less a continuous discussion in my life every day. The book chronicles my adventures, and gives some advice, about sexuality when you first re-enter the dating world after a hiatus, in my case, a 23 year marriage.
I found a wide audience of people interested in talking to me, but it wasn’t just about the sexual and dating tips in the book. Many people shyly or sadly talked about why they didn’t re-enter the dating scene, why they still felt sexual, but why they didn’t want to chance going out again, looking for love or sex. It wasn’t a revelation. One of the reasons I wrote my part memoir, part advice book, was to inspire people to “get out there” and reawaken their capacity for passion and love. However, after talking to people all week, it reminds me how burned and scared, and reluctant people really are to go and look for love and intimacy. What it clarified for me is that one of the more painful things that we don’t talk enough about is how many women and men just stop having sex because of their fear of rejection or the belief that a worthy partners is unattainable. Even responding to someone’s interest, much less looking for partner, is unthinkable.
I understand these feelings. I have had a divorce, I have lost partners that I desperately wanted, I am sure if emotional bruises showed, I’d be multi-colored. Still, and here is the important, caveat, there was always a brighter day, a new man, a fabulous night, and then, a serious relationship that replaced the old one in my affections, even if it didn’t entirely erase the memory of it’s disappointments.
What I think you need for love and sex is resilience: The ability to pick yourself up, dust off the dirt, take a shower, feel renewed and look for companionship again. Although it’s hard on the soul, I think what’s even harder, is a vaccum - no one who says you are wonderful, no one who holds your body as if it is precious ( and of course it is) and no one who brings you to ecstatic or at least happy emotional and physical release. I think those experiences, those feelings, are too precious to give up, even if it means having to go through some healing and some new exposure to pain.
But what is life about anyone? Did anyone promise us that everyone would love us and find us irresistible? As reasonably logical people, we know that we can’t be what every other person on the planet wants—and yet--- we do hope, that the person we want, wants us. When they don’t, it’s easy to dissolve in self pity, self loathing, or just safety- which we think, means romantic isolation.
But here’s something from my book , that might be helpful to you- it has been helpful to me. I call it my Pineapple theory. I don’t like Pineapple. There is nothing wrong with Pineapple- many people would pick it as their favorite fruit. I just don’t like it- but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s a perfectly worthy fruit for other people.
Well that’s one way to think about rejection. You may not be to someone’s taste-but that mean’s nothing about your goodness or attractiveness. You were just not what this person wanted. But someone else will think you are a peach.
Well, you say, easy to say, but I’ve been rejected more than once, it’s got to be me. Well, that’s something to think about- but it doesn’t mean you can’t find true love. It may indicate however, that you get involved too quickly with someone incompatible, or you systematically choose someone who is not likely to go for you. Look for a different category and you may easily find someone who adores you.
I know this is not an easy process. But putting your sexuality and romance and love and companionship is too high a price to pay for emotional safety. And I don’t think it’s necessary. I guarantee you that you can find love—but only if you look for it, and only if you correct course when one kind of approach doesn’t work for awhile. Yes, you need to be resilient, but no, you don’t need to be perfect. You just have to let yourself be open, vulnerable and loving. You don’t want to lose that part of yourself.
I found a wide audience of people interested in talking to me, but it wasn’t just about the sexual and dating tips in the book. Many people shyly or sadly talked about why they didn’t re-enter the dating scene, why they still felt sexual, but why they didn’t want to chance going out again, looking for love or sex. It wasn’t a revelation. One of the reasons I wrote my part memoir, part advice book, was to inspire people to “get out there” and reawaken their capacity for passion and love. However, after talking to people all week, it reminds me how burned and scared, and reluctant people really are to go and look for love and intimacy. What it clarified for me is that one of the more painful things that we don’t talk enough about is how many women and men just stop having sex because of their fear of rejection or the belief that a worthy partners is unattainable. Even responding to someone’s interest, much less looking for partner, is unthinkable.
I understand these feelings. I have had a divorce, I have lost partners that I desperately wanted, I am sure if emotional bruises showed, I’d be multi-colored. Still, and here is the important, caveat, there was always a brighter day, a new man, a fabulous night, and then, a serious relationship that replaced the old one in my affections, even if it didn’t entirely erase the memory of it’s disappointments.
What I think you need for love and sex is resilience: The ability to pick yourself up, dust off the dirt, take a shower, feel renewed and look for companionship again. Although it’s hard on the soul, I think what’s even harder, is a vaccum - no one who says you are wonderful, no one who holds your body as if it is precious ( and of course it is) and no one who brings you to ecstatic or at least happy emotional and physical release. I think those experiences, those feelings, are too precious to give up, even if it means having to go through some healing and some new exposure to pain.
But what is life about anyone? Did anyone promise us that everyone would love us and find us irresistible? As reasonably logical people, we know that we can’t be what every other person on the planet wants—and yet--- we do hope, that the person we want, wants us. When they don’t, it’s easy to dissolve in self pity, self loathing, or just safety- which we think, means romantic isolation.
But here’s something from my book , that might be helpful to you- it has been helpful to me. I call it my Pineapple theory. I don’t like Pineapple. There is nothing wrong with Pineapple- many people would pick it as their favorite fruit. I just don’t like it- but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s a perfectly worthy fruit for other people.
Well that’s one way to think about rejection. You may not be to someone’s taste-but that mean’s nothing about your goodness or attractiveness. You were just not what this person wanted. But someone else will think you are a peach.
Well, you say, easy to say, but I’ve been rejected more than once, it’s got to be me. Well, that’s something to think about- but it doesn’t mean you can’t find true love. It may indicate however, that you get involved too quickly with someone incompatible, or you systematically choose someone who is not likely to go for you. Look for a different category and you may easily find someone who adores you.
I know this is not an easy process. But putting your sexuality and romance and love and companionship is too high a price to pay for emotional safety. And I don’t think it’s necessary. I guarantee you that you can find love—but only if you look for it, and only if you correct course when one kind of approach doesn’t work for awhile. Yes, you need to be resilient, but no, you don’t need to be perfect. You just have to let yourself be open, vulnerable and loving. You don’t want to lose that part of yourself.
06/25: Isn’t it time to Evolve?
If you are watching cable TV, a few of the networks ( not Fox of course!) or YouTube, you can see the new Trojan commercial about how pigs turn into men when they use a condom. It’s very funny and very serious. The pigs are hysterical, but the point is important: be responsible, be a man, protect yourself and your partner. Some versions of the pigs and condom story also include a woman turning down a guy when he doesn’t bring a condom; she’s attracted to him and doesn’t realize that he’s a pig until he does something piggy—like not have a condom. Then she kicks him out. The point there: women should understand that a man who brings a condom is a guy who cares, and a man who doesn’t , isn’t worthy of her since he doesn’t protect either one of them.
Truth in advertising: I saw these ads before they reached the general public because I sit on an advisory committee for Trojan. I thought they were great because they were entertaining and funny-but also had the possibility of changing the meaning of carrying a condom. Studies have shown that some men and women won’t carry a condom because they think it will make them look too experienced, “loose” or “predatory”. What this ad campaign is trying to do is change those perceptions to another one: carrying a condom means you are the right kind of person.
Can one condom campaign accomplish that goal? Probably not. But it is exactly the first step that has to be taken. We have behavior now without responsibility. The majority of young people do not use a condom the first time they have intercourse. Even fewer use them consistently as the relationship grows. Partners often stop using condoms just because they know and like each other better—without any additional knowledge of each other’s disease history or current monogamy. The results: syphilis rates going back up, a steady transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and a scary rate of additional HIV cases.
It’s astounding to me that some stations and networks refused to carry the ads. In fact refuse to carry any ads about birth control. Even when the people in the ads are obviously older than 2l. There is a squeamishness about helping people have sex without medical consequences or pregnancy unless it’s sex sanctified by marriage. I could understand this if we were still a nation that believed in no sex before marriage, but now the vast majority of Americans not only believe in it, but practice it. Why wouldn’t we help those people stay healthy? Why is the will of the minority triumphing over what most Americans want and need: a code of sexual conduct that promotes responsibility and health?
I applaud Trojan for trying to create interest in rational and responsible sexual behavior. This is just the first broadside in their campaign. They are committed to continue helping sexually active people rethink sexual etiquette and morality. Their business interests and their moral commitments are aligned on this one, so I believe this is an approach they will sustain-whether it works with talking pigs or other ways to catch our attention. I’m glad of it- because I believe it is moral to help people stay healthy and have wanted babies. I can understand why some people do not believe in pre-marital or non marital sex and don’t have it; what I can’t understand is why they don’t let the people who do believe in sexuality outside of wedlock learn how to have sex in a way that is in the interests of public safety and personal health.
06/23: Age Before Beauty?
There is a program on NBC at 9 EST whose whole premise is whether a guy,
given very attractive choices, would be more compelled by - to use the
stereotypes - youth, energy and beauty or again, to oversimplify - wisdom,
life experience and achievement. The guy in this case gets to pick among
very attractive women in their twenties and very attractive women in their
forties, and at the end of the series, pick just one woman to have a
relationship with.
Women watching this program think, “doesn’t it all just come down to
the person"? And maybe, for some men, it does. But for other men, age is a
very powerful aphrodisiac and youth can triumph over a host of other
characteristics.
Socio-biologists would say, “No big surprise there!". They believe
that, at base, men's choices are based on women's fertility and their
likelihood of producing excellent offspring. They don't say this is
conscious- just something ingrained in the DNA of males over thousands of
years. Of course those attractions may have been set way before facelifts,
body reshaping and trainers - which can trick the eye into thinking that a
forty year old is decades younger than her real age.
Still, if a man knows the truth- could a 45 year old woman really
compete with a 25 year old for a 38 year old's attention? Most people
think not-- and in that assumption lays the fascination that the show holds
for both men and women. Are women really going to escape the vicissitudes of
age and be competitive for a younger male? Are women going to stay
attractive to men past menopause and child bearing and the body and mind
changes that occur with age?
As a middle aged woman I would say that it’s not a brave new world yet.
While there are plenty of men who find older women attractive- it is usually
because they do look much younger than their real age--or because the men,
in their middle age, do not want to have more children or inherit the
babies or school age children of a young woman. Older men may fall in love
with a specific older woman for her various physical and mental talents- but
in general, if you look at online dating sites, the men on them generally
look for someone their own age or younger. It is the exceptional man who
will consider a woman ten years older than himself. It is the
average man who will look at a woman ten years younger than himself.
There are all kinds of reasons these men give for liking younger
women, besides the very fact of being beautiful. Some older guys are just
honest about protecting themselves as they age: they want someone who is
young enough to take care of them when they are older. Others need "arm
candy" and the prestige of having a younger woman interested in them.
Others want to be the teacher, not the taught. And still others say they are
looking for women "without baggage"- no matter what baggage they are
carrying themselves!
Or maybe, just maybe- the attractiveness of youth is there for
everyone. I have to say I have heard many a woman in her fifties say that
if she can find one, she is looking for a younger man. Just yesterday a
woman of 53 said to me, “I have given up looking for a man my age. They are
so old".
So, while people are looking better, getting fitter, and probably
getting wiser as they age...it's a tough match up if they are competing
against a sweet young thing. On the other hand, for the open minded, there
is a great crop of older gents and ladies available. Whether or not they get
picked on the NBC program or not, the gifts of these older women (and men)
are many. With age expectancies into our 80s, and healthy living extended
into extreme old age, I might encourage men-and women- to look again- at
their age group and older. The cultural and biological pull may be to
youth-- but there are satisfactions that only occur with someone who has
lived a long and active and fulfilled life.
Pepper
given very attractive choices, would be more compelled by - to use the
stereotypes - youth, energy and beauty or again, to oversimplify - wisdom,
life experience and achievement. The guy in this case gets to pick among
very attractive women in their twenties and very attractive women in their
forties, and at the end of the series, pick just one woman to have a
relationship with.
Women watching this program think, “doesn’t it all just come down to
the person"? And maybe, for some men, it does. But for other men, age is a
very powerful aphrodisiac and youth can triumph over a host of other
characteristics.
Socio-biologists would say, “No big surprise there!". They believe
that, at base, men's choices are based on women's fertility and their
likelihood of producing excellent offspring. They don't say this is
conscious- just something ingrained in the DNA of males over thousands of
years. Of course those attractions may have been set way before facelifts,
body reshaping and trainers - which can trick the eye into thinking that a
forty year old is decades younger than her real age.
Still, if a man knows the truth- could a 45 year old woman really
compete with a 25 year old for a 38 year old's attention? Most people
think not-- and in that assumption lays the fascination that the show holds
for both men and women. Are women really going to escape the vicissitudes of
age and be competitive for a younger male? Are women going to stay
attractive to men past menopause and child bearing and the body and mind
changes that occur with age?
As a middle aged woman I would say that it’s not a brave new world yet.
While there are plenty of men who find older women attractive- it is usually
because they do look much younger than their real age--or because the men,
in their middle age, do not want to have more children or inherit the
babies or school age children of a young woman. Older men may fall in love
with a specific older woman for her various physical and mental talents- but
in general, if you look at online dating sites, the men on them generally
look for someone their own age or younger. It is the exceptional man who
will consider a woman ten years older than himself. It is the
average man who will look at a woman ten years younger than himself.
There are all kinds of reasons these men give for liking younger
women, besides the very fact of being beautiful. Some older guys are just
honest about protecting themselves as they age: they want someone who is
young enough to take care of them when they are older. Others need "arm
candy" and the prestige of having a younger woman interested in them.
Others want to be the teacher, not the taught. And still others say they are
looking for women "without baggage"- no matter what baggage they are
carrying themselves!
Or maybe, just maybe- the attractiveness of youth is there for
everyone. I have to say I have heard many a woman in her fifties say that
if she can find one, she is looking for a younger man. Just yesterday a
woman of 53 said to me, “I have given up looking for a man my age. They are
so old".
So, while people are looking better, getting fitter, and probably
getting wiser as they age...it's a tough match up if they are competing
against a sweet young thing. On the other hand, for the open minded, there
is a great crop of older gents and ladies available. Whether or not they get
picked on the NBC program or not, the gifts of these older women (and men)
are many. With age expectancies into our 80s, and healthy living extended
into extreme old age, I might encourage men-and women- to look again- at
their age group and older. The cultural and biological pull may be to
youth-- but there are satisfactions that only occur with someone who has
lived a long and active and fulfilled life.
Pepper
06/17: What Century is This?
The state of Georgia should be boycotted and kicked out of standing as a
modern political entity. Watching the national news about this young Georgia
boy who was imprisoned at age 17 for having a consensual sexual relationship
with a girl two years younger than him is painful to begin with: as the
judge ruled, it is a terrible perversion and miscarriage of justice. But to
hear the state's attorney say that he might appeal the case, is more than I
can bear! How far can our hypocrisy about sex go? Obviously farther than I
could imagine-- and I can imagine a great deal.
The average age of sexual intercourse is age 15.5 among white boys and
about 16 for white girls. It is at least a year younger for African American
boys and girls. By age 17 almost half of young people have had intercourse
and by age 19 that number is in the 80% bracket. Whether you like those
statistics or not, you would agree with me, that if we reacted to those
numbers by looking for offenders to jail because they were sexually active
under the age of 16 or had a two year difference with the person they had
sex with, we would have to build twice as many prisons as we have now-- and
we have a lot of prisons already.
What is the state of Georgia thinking? What kind of legalistic ,
moralistic nuttiness is this? We have had a cultural sea change. Huge
numbers of young people have sex before marriage and it is not uncommon for
younger girls to want to be with older boys. These are not predatory
relationships. These are not adult men enticing young girls with candy bars
and then pulling them into alleys to rape them. These are young people
falling in love, experimenting with lust, finding their way into the world
as sexual beings. Some choices will be wise. Others will be regretted. But it
is the way we grow up now.
Sure we can scare the hell out of them by putting some of them in jail.
But obviously , or perhaps not so obviously given this case, it would be
crazy to try to punish so many young people-- we would be trying to change
a tidal wave of youth behavior. What thinking people know is that our
responsibility is to keep them as physically and mentally healthy and safe
as we can: give them information, make condoms available, give them safe and
wise adults to talk to. Give them peer groups for discussion and
expression. Throwing them into jail? It's medieval, barbaric, and sad. My
heart broke looking at that young man. I cannot believe my country did this
to him.
Can any parent watching this case this not fear that their child could
have been caught in this vise? Does it not seem a betrayal of what American
is supposed to be: just, merciful, democratic and protective of the future
of children? Perhaps because the victim in this case was African American,
the rest of white America feels that this was just racial persecution and
that their child is safe. That of course is a unworthy and selfish way to
react-- but it is also incorrect. Whatever happens to the least powerful
among us, can also happen , eventually, to the more privileged. I know many
stories of young men who have been entangled with the law because of an
unrealistic imposition of morality. It didn't matter in these cases either
that they were in consensual relationships. It didn't even matter that the
girl's parents really didn't want to impose sanctions on the boy involved.
We have made some laws that simply ignore the facts about teenage sexuality
and when grossly unrealistic laws meet teenage sexual behavior, tragedy can
result.
This particular case is a travesty, but believe me there are others. We
should all write the state of Georgia and protest. And we should all check
the laws that are on the books in our own state and see if they need to be
changed.
Pepper
modern political entity. Watching the national news about this young Georgia
boy who was imprisoned at age 17 for having a consensual sexual relationship
with a girl two years younger than him is painful to begin with: as the
judge ruled, it is a terrible perversion and miscarriage of justice. But to
hear the state's attorney say that he might appeal the case, is more than I
can bear! How far can our hypocrisy about sex go? Obviously farther than I
could imagine-- and I can imagine a great deal.
The average age of sexual intercourse is age 15.5 among white boys and
about 16 for white girls. It is at least a year younger for African American
boys and girls. By age 17 almost half of young people have had intercourse
and by age 19 that number is in the 80% bracket. Whether you like those
statistics or not, you would agree with me, that if we reacted to those
numbers by looking for offenders to jail because they were sexually active
under the age of 16 or had a two year difference with the person they had
sex with, we would have to build twice as many prisons as we have now-- and
we have a lot of prisons already.
What is the state of Georgia thinking? What kind of legalistic ,
moralistic nuttiness is this? We have had a cultural sea change. Huge
numbers of young people have sex before marriage and it is not uncommon for
younger girls to want to be with older boys. These are not predatory
relationships. These are not adult men enticing young girls with candy bars
and then pulling them into alleys to rape them. These are young people
falling in love, experimenting with lust, finding their way into the world
as sexual beings. Some choices will be wise. Others will be regretted. But it
is the way we grow up now.
Sure we can scare the hell out of them by putting some of them in jail.
But obviously , or perhaps not so obviously given this case, it would be
crazy to try to punish so many young people-- we would be trying to change
a tidal wave of youth behavior. What thinking people know is that our
responsibility is to keep them as physically and mentally healthy and safe
as we can: give them information, make condoms available, give them safe and
wise adults to talk to. Give them peer groups for discussion and
expression. Throwing them into jail? It's medieval, barbaric, and sad. My
heart broke looking at that young man. I cannot believe my country did this
to him.
Can any parent watching this case this not fear that their child could
have been caught in this vise? Does it not seem a betrayal of what American
is supposed to be: just, merciful, democratic and protective of the future
of children? Perhaps because the victim in this case was African American,
the rest of white America feels that this was just racial persecution and
that their child is safe. That of course is a unworthy and selfish way to
react-- but it is also incorrect. Whatever happens to the least powerful
among us, can also happen , eventually, to the more privileged. I know many
stories of young men who have been entangled with the law because of an
unrealistic imposition of morality. It didn't matter in these cases either
that they were in consensual relationships. It didn't even matter that the
girl's parents really didn't want to impose sanctions on the boy involved.
We have made some laws that simply ignore the facts about teenage sexuality
and when grossly unrealistic laws meet teenage sexual behavior, tragedy can
result.
This particular case is a travesty, but believe me there are others. We
should all write the state of Georgia and protest. And we should all check
the laws that are on the books in our own state and see if they need to be
changed.
Pepper
06/06: Wedding Season
Yes, it is wedding season. If fall is for hunting, winter for cozying up, and spring for well, babies, then summer- approximately nine months earlier is the time for tying the knot in weather that just might permit an outdoor ceremony.
I was in Los Angeles last weekend for a big Jewish family wedding. The bride was gorgeous, the groom was beaming, they were both doctors and of course the parents were in heaven. And while it was a Jewish wedding, with a religious ceremony, the after show was pure Americana. What particularly tickled me was that the mostly African American band played a mean Hava Nagila, sang both Yiddish and Hebrew fluently and transitioned to rock and roll and soul seamlessly. The 150 some people there danced to it all- rocking and rolling, doing the hora, the electric slide- whatever.
I loved it. I loved the fact that in America we learn each other’s traditions, we celebrate together, and we add on each other’s songs, music and dance. We are the richer for it, that’s for sure. In a world where ethnic hatreds fuel murder just because someone has a different ethnicity or religious teachings, America has its act together and there is no place better to observe it than at weddings where everyone wishes the couple well and is pretty happy with each other too.
I thought about what a wonderful send off the wedding is. There is actually some data that shows people who have a big, traditional wedding have a lower chance of divorce. And I could see why. In this case, David, late 30s,and Tracey, late 20s, are part of the increasingly older average age of brides and grooms in America, and could easily have had a small, private ceremony and escaped the expense and duties of a big wedding. But it was clear they wanted their marriage to be witnessed, their bond to be a public one, and the support of a larger community to give them stability.
I think it does. The community of friends and family, and a community of diverse faiths and races and backgrounds, came together to celebrate love and commitment and the ambitious hope of a lifetime marriage. I didn’t hear one cynical remark. When we left, I think everyone there thought this couple would last forever. It was inspiring to the already married and the young hopefuls. No one can read the future of course, but what a wonderful gift it was to all of us to feel embraced by love, fellowship and optimism for the future.
Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D.
I was in Los Angeles last weekend for a big Jewish family wedding. The bride was gorgeous, the groom was beaming, they were both doctors and of course the parents were in heaven. And while it was a Jewish wedding, with a religious ceremony, the after show was pure Americana. What particularly tickled me was that the mostly African American band played a mean Hava Nagila, sang both Yiddish and Hebrew fluently and transitioned to rock and roll and soul seamlessly. The 150 some people there danced to it all- rocking and rolling, doing the hora, the electric slide- whatever.
I loved it. I loved the fact that in America we learn each other’s traditions, we celebrate together, and we add on each other’s songs, music and dance. We are the richer for it, that’s for sure. In a world where ethnic hatreds fuel murder just because someone has a different ethnicity or religious teachings, America has its act together and there is no place better to observe it than at weddings where everyone wishes the couple well and is pretty happy with each other too.
I thought about what a wonderful send off the wedding is. There is actually some data that shows people who have a big, traditional wedding have a lower chance of divorce. And I could see why. In this case, David, late 30s,and Tracey, late 20s, are part of the increasingly older average age of brides and grooms in America, and could easily have had a small, private ceremony and escaped the expense and duties of a big wedding. But it was clear they wanted their marriage to be witnessed, their bond to be a public one, and the support of a larger community to give them stability.
I think it does. The community of friends and family, and a community of diverse faiths and races and backgrounds, came together to celebrate love and commitment and the ambitious hope of a lifetime marriage. I didn’t hear one cynical remark. When we left, I think everyone there thought this couple would last forever. It was inspiring to the already married and the young hopefuls. No one can read the future of course, but what a wonderful gift it was to all of us to feel embraced by love, fellowship and optimism for the future.
Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D.