In defense of cheating

Although statistics about the prevalence of infidelity vary wildly (between 25% and 60% over the duration of a marriage), everybody seems to agree that it is on the increase on Western societies. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Or is it just one more symptom of the disintegration of the monogamous norm? Judging from what I read, it seems that many polyamorous people, while critiquing sexual exclusivity, are quite judgmental when it comes to cheating. In agreement with people of a more puritanical persuasion, they tend to view infidelity as the betrayal of a sacred oath. According to them, if a person is sexually unsatisfied in her or his current relationship, there are only three morally acceptable options: 1) continue to live sexually deprived, 2) negotiate an open relationship, 3) leave the relationship. The 4th option, of course, is cheating. I believe that sometimes it is ethically justified for the following reasons…

I believe that the basic issue underlying the ethics of sex is personal autonomy. It means that my body (and my mind) is mine and I should be able to use it as I see fit, as long as it doesn’t impinge in the personal autonomy of somebody else. This has two implications, one negative and one positive. The negative implication is that nobody should use my body (or my mind) against my desires, which makes rape, sexual abuse, psychological abuse and other forms of non-consensual sex, immoral. The positive implication is that I have a right to my own sexual satisfaction (again, as long as it doesn’t violate the personal autonomy of somebody else). This implies that sexual repression also violates personal autonomy and should be considered a form of abuse. Therefore, cheating is not a violation of consent because it does not violate the partner’s personal autonomy. What it does violate is a personal contract in which two people have agreed to mutual sexual exclusivity. However, breaking an agreement is a much less serious offense than violating personal autonomy (as in rape and sexual abuse). It is important to note that the sexual exclusivity agreement does involve relinquishing a large segment of personal autonomy: before I was able to have sex with whoever wanted to have sex with me, now I’m restricted to just one person. Because of that, any form of coercion in establishing this agreement should be considered quite seriously.

We cannot forget that we live in a society that strongly enforces monogamy. In fact, there many places in the world today where non-monogamy is punished with death. Even the more enlighten Western societies exert considerable pressure in favor of monogamy, using different forms of legal, economic, cultural and social sanctions. Very often these are unfairly directed more toward women than toward men.

Because of that, we cannot consider the agreement of sexual exclusivity involved in marriage as one freely made, but one made under the pressure of a coercive environment. In practice, this means that we are given the option between a monogamous relationship or no relationship at all. Almost nobody is given the option between an open relationship or a sexually exclusive one: it is monogamy by default. Let’s remember that an agreement made under duress is not morally binding.

Let’s now consider the three options (other than cheating) offered to a person who is sexually dissatisfied in a relationship. The first one is to just put up with the sexual deprivation. In the old, sexually-repressive culture, this went unquestioned. Sex was considered something superfluous, unnecessary for the happiness of a decent person (especially if it was a woman). The new sex-positive culture has changed that perspective, posing that it is unacceptable for a person to live sexually deprived. This not only applies to having sex in general, but also to enjoy alternative sexualities like BDSM. If I’m kinky and my partner is not, I’m entitled to do something about it. So this is no longer an acceptable option for a lot of people.

The second option is to negotiate an open relationship. This is considerably difficult, often impossible. Let’s not forget that open and polyamorous relationships are vanishingly few. Realistically, proposing an open agreement to a partner entrenched in the monogamous mentality is not only futile, it is foolish. The only thing that it would accomplish is to make us instant suspects of cheating, or wanting to cheat.

The third option is breaking the relationship. I am quite surprise at the alacrity with which so many people propose this option… like breaking-up was easy and entailed no suffering at all! Quite the opposite, most of the time it is the least desirable option, often an impossible one. This is because we live in a society that wraps a lot of power in the institution of marriage, in the form of economic power (share savings, mortgage, etc.) and restrictions of individual freedom (the house where I live, the job that I have, childcare, etc.). Then, breaking-up is not a simple matter of stopping a sexual and emotional relationship, but something that throws our life in a complete turmoil, most likely ending up by lowering significantly our standard of living. Divorce is easy when you are rich, ruinous when you are poor. And then there are the children, who probably wouldn’t suffer much if a parent occasionally cheats, but would be devastated by a divorce.

In conclusion, cheating is not a black-and-white issue, but one of great complexity. If one thing is clear, is that we would all gain a lot by de-dramatizing it. Contrary to what we read in novels and see on television, it’s not worth killing anybody over it. Is not even worth leaving our loved one over it. Sex is just sex, let’s not blow it out of proportion by attaching all sorts of mystical meanings to it. Yes, in some cases cheating is a dastardly thing to do, involving breaking of trust, dishonesty and betrayal. But in other cases it is just the least bad of a set of bad options. Like the case of the woman who has become economically dependent of her husband by leaving her career to have children, and now finds that he no longer wants to have sex with her.

From the point of view of a non-monogamous, sex-positive culture, we should be able to appreciate the element of rebellion against the established order that is implicit in cheating. Yes, the person being cheated suffers, but the monogamous norm is partly to blame for that suffering. It is that culture that has convinced him that being cheated is, oh, such an awful thing to go through! And let’s not forget that that cultural norm of sexual exclusivity creates an unbalance of power, empowering the sexually repressive member of a couple to the disadvantage of the one that yearns for sexual freedom. Ideally, we should all be able to be polyamorous if we wanted, but in reality the ability to do that is reserved to a precious few. We should not be judgmental of people who have to resort to other, more unpalatable options.

The six basic emotions of Ekman

Charles Darwin was one of the first to realize that there are several emotions that are clearly expressed in the face and the body, not only of humans but also of many mammals. The fact that emotions are not unique to humans was consistent with his theory of evolution. Almost a century later, in 1972, Paul Ekman did a cross-cultural study in which he concluded that there are six basic emotions: joy, sadness, fear, anger, disgust and surprise.

• Fear is the most well-studied all these six emotions because is connected to important psychological problems like anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We know that involves the activation of the amygdala region of the brain. In the body, fears triggers the production of adrenaline and the activation of the sympathetic system, which prepares the body for action: the fight-or-flight response. Paradoxically, it can also produce the opposite behavior: freezing, which consists in complete immobility of the animal, perhaps to escape detection.

• Disgust makes us reject substances or environments that are potentially unhealthy because they present a danger of infection or poisoning. We can imagine that this is a very primitive emotion because even simple animals have chemical senses that stops them from eating and makes them move away from toxic substances. It is associated with the body reactions of nausea and vomiting.

• Anger is associated with behaviors of aggression. Like fear, it involves adrenaline secretion and the activation of the sympathetic system, but while fear leads to either freezing or escape, anger draws us towards whatever has irritated us.

• Surprise, like fear and anger, involves a general activation of the nervous system. Its role is to direct our attention towards an unexpected stimulus. It is not a negative emotion, because at the onset it draws us towards the stimulus. If the stimulus turns out to be threatening, it is quickly followed by fear.

• Sadness produces the opposite reaction than fear, anger and surprise: it deactivates the nervous system, leading to a state of internal withdrawal.

• Joy is the most positive emotion. It activates the nervous system to make us go out exploring or to repeat a pleasurable behavior. I think it is important not to confuse joy with happiness, which is not an emotion but a generalized state of well-being, harmony and agreement with our life. Although when we are happy we tend to experience more joy, we can be happy in the mist of other emotions. For example, the fear inspired by scary movies or dangerous sports is happy-making. Even sadness can be accompanied by happiness, like in some pleasant melancholy states.

I feel increasingly fascinated by emotions. For a long time I have wanted to write about these six basic emotions and now, to my surprise, there is a Disney movie about them! The animation film Inside Out zooms inside the mind of the characters to show us how these basic emotions interact among them to direct our behavior.

Of course, being a Disney movie, we can expect a certain lack of depth and factual errors. The first one is… Surprise! They totally left surprise out. Why? What’s wrong with surprise? Is a perfectly legit basic emotion… Who doesn’t like a surprise party? Well, actually, I do… I’m a bit of a control freak and don’t like surprises, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate this emotion when it comes barging into my mind.

The other problem is a bit more subtle: the implication that these puny five emotions are the only ones we feel, when there are so many others. What happened to love, compassion, regret, jealousy, envy, pride, shame, guilt, indignation, self-righteousness, curiosity, boredom, awe, ridicule and loyalty? And that list is far from exhaustive. Unlike the six basic emotions of Ekman, many of these other emotions appear to be exclusively human. For example, we used to think that dogs feel shame and guilt, but recent research shows that we may be anthropomorphizing what is just a display of fear. Or maybe dogs are just very good a mimicking these emotions. Regardless, many of these emotions (like love, shame, guilt, pride and loyalty) are related to regulating social behavior. Others, like curiosity, interest, boredom and awe, seems related to our cognitive interaction with the world. I hope to write an article about these uniquely human emotions very soon.

And an interesting way of classifying emotions...

The Wall of Words

Words are meant to be used to communicate and communication is essential in any relationship. However, quite often words are used as weapons to attack a partner in a relationship, as clubs to bludgeon he or she into submission. One thing I have encountered quite often in my life is what I call the “Wall of Words”, which consists in one person (whom I will call a “waller”) talking in an aggressive way for long periods of time so that the other person is forced into silence and does not have time to form an effective defense.

Here is how it works. The person will start talking and carry on for a long period of time, often giving lots of unnecessary details and repeating himself. If the other person interrupts her, he will complain vigorously about the interruption and then proceed with the speech. However, there is a double standard regarding interruptions, because when the other person finally gets a chance to talk, she will be soon interrupted by another long tirade of the “waller”, who suddenly feels the urgent need to correct something the other person has just said. In the most blatant cases of the Wall of Words that I have experienced, there was an occasional silence but when I opened my mouth to speak the “waller” immediately started talking over me, blocking anything I was trying to say. In fact, the Wall of Words may leads to two persons talking simultaneously, even screaming at each other, one trying desperately to get heard and the other blocking the speech.

The Wall of Words is harder to implement in group situations, although I have seen one person take control over an entire meeting and preventing people with dissenting opinions to speak by using her authority as the Chair to allocate most of the speaking time to herself.

The “waller”, consciously or unconsciously, is trying to block the other person from communicating. She clearly does not want to listen, she just wants to lecture the other person. The goal is to create a power imbalance in which the “waller” adopts the role of a superior lecturing a subordinate, like an adult reprimanding a child or a boss chastising an employee. Indeed, the content of the speech in the Wall of Words is quite often full of accusations and shaming. Other times the “waller” presents herself as a victim and the Wall of Words in put up with the excuse of defending herself against the supposed abuse of the other person. Of course, abuse does happen, but the way to stop it should not be preventing the abuser from communicating. In fact, the Wall of Words is in itself a form of psychological abuse in which the power imbalance created by the fact that one person gets to talk and the other doesn’t may end up undermining the self-esteem of the person silenced. Often, the “waller” will elaborate a long list of accusations and the person silenced feels powerless to even start addressing it. In the worst cases, threats are also included, adding fear to the negative emotions of guilt and shame.

What can be done when faced with a Wall of Words? Solutions are not easy because the Wall of Words itself prevents any solutions based on good communication. Here are some ideas:

1. Ask a third person to mediate. Ideally, the mediator should be made aware of the problem so that she can arbitrate equal time to talk. However, be aware that the “waller” may try to involve the mediator in the dynamic with protest of unfairness, ultimately also blocking the mediator from communicating. 
2. Walk away. Quite often a person will put up a Wall of Words only when he is upset or forced into a defensive position. In those cases, simply rescheduling the conversation for a time when everybody is more calm solves the problem. In other cases it may simply not be worthwhile to talk to a person who uses the Wall of Words. On the other hand, trying to continue a conversation when a Wall of Words is being used is not just a waste of time, but an affront at the dignity of the person being subjected to it and may even cause her psychological damage.
3. Ask yourself if you are part of the problem. Granted, a Wall of Words is abusive, but perhaps the person using it does so as a mechanism of defense against something that you are doing. She obviously doesn’t want to listen to you, but is it out of fear that what you may say will hurt her? Even if you don’t use a Wall of Words, you may also be saying things that are threatening, blaming or shaming. 
4. Use a safeword to signal to a person prone to use a Wall of Words that she is carrying on for too long and is time for her to listen. Of course, this is predicated on that person recognizing that there is a problem.
5. Name the problem: “you are using a Wall of Words”. I think that coming up with a shorthand name like the “Wall of Words” can help a lot by raising awareness about a previously unrecognized problem. Other words like “sexist”, “homophobic”, “emotional blackmail” and “slut shaming” have work very effectively as a signposts for other abusive behaviors. 

I just came up with these possible solutions by thinking about this problem, but if you know of any others please feel free to suggest them.

Indignation and self-righteousness, explained by David Brin

David Brin is my favorite science-fiction writer and a savvy and innovative thinker. In particular, his ideas about the emotions of indignation and self-righteousness are extremely important in the current climate of ideological polarization. Here is how he explains it in a TED talk...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow

The virgin/whore complex

Some men dream about a woman that is pure and chaste. She has been waiting all her life for him, rejecting every man in her path until his arrival because he is her special one, the one she will love and cherish for the rest of her life. Once she is with him she will not flirt with anyone, not even look at them. She will protect her modesty and save her charms only for him. She is his virgin, if not in deed, at least in her deepest heart. She is also ready to step in the mother role, to build him a home that will be his castle, to take care of him and eventually of his children.

Well, maybe it is too much to be expected from a woman to be a virgin in this day and age, but a man can always dream… And, as a last resource, he can always invoke the old American Redemption Myth that permeates so many of the stories and biographies in the USA. It goes like this… A person is led astray by the “follies of youth”, tempted by sex, drugs and violence. She spirals down in circles of increasing degeneration until she touches bottom. Then she “looks for help” and starts a new life in a magical ordeal of rebirth - she is “born again”. That would be the perfect moment in her life in which her savior, the prince she has been waiting for without knowing in, can ride in wearing shining armor or a cowboy outfit, to “sweep her off her feet” and welcome her into her new life. All the mistakes of the past are forgiven and forgotten. Her virginity is magically restored by the soul-searching and the trials of her rebirth.

However, before making his glorious appearance into the virgin’s life, our knight-in-shining-armor or Malboro man has to entertain himself. He looks for “easy” women to have fun with. They are sexy, hot and funny and he likes to spend time with them. But in is heart of hearts he despises them because he knows what they are: they are whores, ready to fling themselves into the arms of any man. They are unworthy of him, they are soiled, they have lost their self-respect by pursuing the easy pleasures of life instead of the higher goal of Pure Love and dedication to Her Man. Of course, there is always the possibility that they would see the error of  their ways, repent and be reborn as virgins ready to devote themselves to the Just One Man ideal.

Occasionally, after he has settled down with his virgin, our King-Of-His-Castle can feel a pang of nostalgia of his careless past with the whores. He thought the virgin would be all he wanted, but now that she is running around taking care of the house and the kids she is not much fun anymore. She dutifully opens her legs for him every time he asks, but sex has become a boring routine. So, since “men will be men”, he occasionally goes out of his castle to find himself a whore or two. Or maybe he adopts a special one who is always waiting to take him on a wild ride when he feels like it. But let’s not get it wrong, everything has to be in its place: the virgin locked in the castle and the whore waiting by the whoring bed.

Things are no different in the BDSM world. In fact, there are some roles that fit perfectly well with the virgin / knight stereotypes. The submissive can be in fact a super-virgin, one that chooses to carry her dedication to her Master to heroic extremes by being ready to obey his every word and to be punished if she ever strays from the “straight and narrow”. And the Dominant can be the super-knight, the Daddy who knows best and has no other desires than the well-being of his submissive virgin.

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this picture? The virgin / whore complex is the manifestation of some of the deepest sexist reflexes of our culture. It is misogynistic because it negates the right of a woman to run her own sexuality, putting it at the service of a man’s fantasies and desires. It is sex-negative because it is based on repressing sexual desire and imposing a narrow normative of sexual behavior. Indeed, it reinforces the same old monogamous societal norms based on sexual and romantic exclusivity, and the labeling of “infidelity” as the worse possible transgression in a couple.

Yes, everybody has a right to live their kink as they please. If they opt for the most conservative versions of monogamous Domestic Discipline, that’s fine. But we cannot allow sexist, sex-negative and monogamous societal norms to be imported into the BDSM community and preached as the only valid way to do BDSM. The very nature of BDSM, the vast variety of its practices, lends itself to having multiple partners with whom to experience different forms of play. A desire for variety and experience doesn’t subtract from the intensity of the surrender in D/s; in fact, it adds to it. Furthermore, we shouldn’t take it for granted that complete surrender and obedience to a Dom is always wholesome and sane. The intensity of the feelings involved in submission makes it way too easy to manipulate them for psychological abuse, especially when coupled with social isolation in the name of “fidelity”. The best way of preventing this from happening is to be immersed in a kinky community that can raise warning flags when they are needed and provide advice to the submissive, and even the Dom, when things start to go wrong.

Cecilia, a portrait

What makes a woman beautiful? There are women of astounding beauty. Women who are tall, sculptural, with blond hair, blue eyes and generous breasts. They are the women that we expect to see on a magazine cover, on a movie poster. Just past her twentieth birthday, Cecilia is pretty, but with a discrete beauty that is only revealed under close inspection. She is petite, with features reduced in proportion. She has black hair parted in the middle; a sea of unruly curls messed up by her habit of sticking her fingers into them, combing them back in a coquettish motion that often ends with a wild shake of her head. Her face is triangular and symmetric, with high cheekbones, straight thing nose and sharp chin. Her lips are expressive, able to change in a heartbeat from a charming smile to a grimace of annoyance, and her big dark brown eyes are shaded by long eyelashes that emphasize that thoughtful look so common in her. One can make out the shape of the muscles in her strong, well-proportioned body, particularly in her arms and her thighs. Her breasts are small, with that shape rounded from the front, conical in profile, that establish youth and elegance. Her most attractive feature is her bottom, which has a bold, insolent curvature that make men turn around in the street to look at her as she walks away.

What makes a woman interesting? There are women with high-pitched, childish, excited voices. Other have voices that are as profound and seductive as the night. Cecilia speaks with a youthful, serene voice, sometimes fast, sometimes meditative. Her gaze often gets lost in the distance or glances self-absorbed at some random object that happens to be in front of her. Her eyes smile better than her lips, but they also know how to glare in anger or
to let tears flow with abandon. She moves with quick, nervous gestures, or occasionally rests motionless, lost in deep thoughts. Because Cecilia is above all a girl of exceptional intelligence, of unconventional ideas, who chases her goals with a stubbornness bordering obsession.

What is it that some women have to make everybody fall in love with them? Perhaps, more than their beauty or their personality, what makes them irresistible is the power of their passion. Cecilia carries inside a burning desire that, like it happens with volcanoes, can be asleep sometimes, but sooner or later it explodes in a rain of incandescent sparks and blazing lava flows. Somehow that inner fire peeks out in the glint of her eyes, in the warmth of her skin, causing many to be bewitched. But beware those who dare love her! For Cecilia is also a woman of dark fantasies, one who courts pain and infamy, and it isn’t always easy to accompany her to the murky places that she likes to visit.

Nevertheless, at the beginning of our story we encounter a different Cecilia. An innocent, immature and sanctimonious girl, trapped in the historical circumstances of the country where she was born: a Spain that was just beginning to wake up from forty years of gloomy dictatorship. That tyranny and the devastating war that preceded it could smother perhaps the yearning for liberty and justice of an entire generation. But what the fascists never expected was that the desire to be free and to fight for a better world will be reborn with renewed strength in the hearts of their own children.

Panic attacks in BDSM scenes

Among the many problems that can happen in a scene, panic attacks can be a serious one, especially if the Top doesn’t know how to handle them. They are more common that you may think. Last month, during a talk I gave at Threshold (the BDSM organization of Los Angeles), I asked my audience to raise their hands if they had experienced a panic attack in a scene, either themselves or their play partner. About two thirds of the 45 people present raised their hand.

What does a panic attack look like? It happens more or less like this… The scene seems the be going well and is approaching its peak. Both the Top and the bottom are completely immersed in it. Then the sub stops reacting. She does not moan with each lash, doesn’t move, has closed her eyes and seems lost in her inner world. Then, all of a sudden, she explodes. The panic attack is characterized by an inability to speak - so in this case the safeword is of little use. There is also difficulty to breathe, uncontrolled moves, evasive gaze, crying and rejection of being touched. Inside, the person that experiences the panic attack feels extreme anxiety, terror, tunnel vision and inability to think and express himself. That state can last an undetermined amount of time, from minutes to hours. Returning to the scene is normally impossible and, in any case, not recommended.

What can we do when this happens? The first thing, of course, is to stop the scene. Discontinue immediately any type of painful or stressful stimulus. If there is bondage, it must be released immediately because physical restrain is one of the main triggers of panic attacks. If necessary cut the ropes with scissors or a knife being extremely careful not to cut the sub, who is probably moving unpredictably. If he is wearing a blindfold, remove it. Turn on the lights. Being able to see provides a strong reassurance. You should speak clearly with a calm voice, explaining everything you are doing, even if it looks obvious to you, even if the sub doesn’t seem to understand. If he is having trouble breathing, you can try guiding his breathing with your voice. You should warn her before you touch her, because sudden physical contact can be alarming for somebody suffering a panic attack. If you are in a public space, try to keep people from crowding the sub. However, if there is somebody around who is intimate with the sub, bring her in, perhaps she can reassure the bottom better that you can. After all, you were the one just beating her, remember? Encourage the sub to cry, which is healing and releases tension. Once the worse part of the attack is over, when the sub can speak again, you should give him  the option of talking about it or staying quiet to process it internally. Some people need to spend time alone after they suffer a panic attack. If that’s the case, your mission is to provide a safe environment in which she is not bothered or can hurt herself. Listen for any signs of danger.

Why do panic attacks happen in scenes? A scene puts the sub in an altered state of consciousness, and he may have a good trip or a bad trip. That state is normally experienced as something nice and enriching, but sometimes it brings forth traumatic experiences that pack such a powerful emotional charge that they trigger the panic attack. We call them “emotional land mines”. Paradoxically, endorphin release can produce the “freezing” state that is often the precursor of the panic attack. Animal studies have found that endorphin release can be triggered by uncontrollable stressors, so if the sub feels that she is losing control in the scene this can trigger the panic. Yes, endorphin release is not always a good thing. It has been linked to the “learned helplessness” paradigm, a state in which the person or the animal gives up and doesn’t fight anymore. Learned helplessness causes immune suppression, cognitive disabilities and a host of other unhealthy effects.

A person who suffers panic attacks is not crazy, neurotic or traumatized. The panic attack is just the manifestation of the power that a BDSM scene has to profoundly alter the mind. If handled right, a panic attack may even be beneficial in the long run. Mobilizing negative psychological contents allows them to be processed consciously, which can be healing.

I think it’s important that everyone who practices BDSM realizes that encountering a panic attack is a real possibility and to know what to do when that happens. It is even possible to prevent the panic attack from happening if we are alert to the freezing behavior that precedes it. When we flog or tie somebody, it’s normal for him to moan, complain and squirm. What is not normal is complete immobility in the face of pain. That is a sign that something is wrong. The Top should talk to the bottom from time to time. If she doesn’t answer, you should stop and look the sub in the face to make sure that everything is all right. There are, of course, people who prefer to “go inside” and not react to pain, but they should warn the Top during the negotiation that that’s the way they function. Conversely, I don’t think is advisable that the Dominant orders or trains the sub to be still and quiet when he experiences pain. Not only that would not let us detect an imminent panic attack, but it’s even likely to provoke one.