Books I’ve Loved — Seth Godin and Esther Perel (#402)

I am the one outlier in a sea of gushing praise for Dr. Perel.

She is brilliant, persuasive, a true thought leader, and there is so much that is brilliant in her books and her work… but on her main points for which she is famous, she is simply wrong.

Her map or relationships has many sticky ideas that connect to observed reality, but it centers on a logical fallacy. And everyone wants to overlook that fallacy, because so many people have felt the pain of erotic death in their relationships, and her ideas absolve them of responsibility because, “you can desire what you already possess.”

The fallacy is that connection and intimacy are antithetical to eroticism. In fact, they are simply different dimensions. It’s like saying something salty cannot be sweet. But, of course, things can be both or neither. Her compelling observation, that we have all seen for ourselves, is that most often, as couples become more intimate, they lose intimacy. That is simply NOT causal, but merely coincidental.

Over and over again in her talks and in her books, Dr. Perel states that playfulness, freedom, and unselfconsciousness are inversely correlated with intimacy. But this simply isn’t close to true. Some couples have neither. Some once had one and then the other. Some couples once had both and then had neither. And some have both and maintain both (I know many, including my parents and my own relationship, and many of the couples I coach… and you might know some too).

Over and over again, Dr Perel also equates closeness, intimacy, stability, and security with neediness, insecurity, surveillance, and lack of autonomy. Again, this is just not factual.

It is true that sometimes when someone has an insecure attachment style that they will exhibit insecurity and neediness in PURSUIT of closeness and intimacy. It is also true that often couples who have been together for a long time try to keep each other in small boxes and try to define them by “who they’ve always been,” instead of related to them with the alive curiosity of who they are becoming.

Neither of these constitute intimacy or closeness, but only the habitual veneer of intimacy.

Of course neediness, insecurity, and possessiveness, and depriving a person of their autonomy kills eroticism! But if one examines this with only a tiny bit of critical thinking before jumping on Dr. Perel’s bandwagon, it becomes obvious that these things are not funded by intimacy and closeness, but are antithetical to authentic intimacy and closeness!

I have a great deal of admiration and respect for much of her thought leadership, and the brilliance of her mind, but this motif in her theories is simply flawed, and a disservice to couples who try to shoe-horn their emotions into her map.

Her clever metaphors like “a flame needs air,” or a “spark needs a gap,” are ludicrously mis-directional, unless you pretend that metaphors are literal or universally applicable.

Sex is not literally a flame, nor is any flame needed for good sex to happen. Indeed, if you light a couple on fire, they will stop having sex immediately. What about diamonds require pressure! Can’t make omelettes without broken eggs! You need cold to make Ice-cream! Fish need water to swim! A plant needs sun to grow! A flint won’t make a spark without being struck by iron! But nobody goes around saying that the way to get better sex is to break some eggs on your lover, douse them in icy water, and then strike them with an iron. Her metaphors are clever sounding, but utterly misleading.

And, “You can’t desire what you already possess,” her big banner headline, is not a deep truth, but only a bad pun on the two meanings of the word desire (to covet vs sexual desire).

Dr Perel continuously creates false dichotomies of…
Passion and adventure vs love and stability,
Autonomy vs connection,
Erotic vs domestic,
Desire vs intimacy…

And she makes it sound very logical, and it does align fequently align with careless observation. And I guess someone can be forgiven if they have only eaten candy and burgers, for thinking that all things are either only sweet OR only salty. But then they try Thai food, and they realize that salt, sugar, and even hot peppers can exist in the same bite.

Plenty of couples have one but not the other. Some have neither. Many have both. And both, in my experience, and the experience of couples I work with, is really, really good.

And if you take 30 seconds to do the thought experiment of bringing to mind the most loving, sexually passionate couple you know, you’ll almost certainly observe that they are not organizing their life to maximize their autonomy and time apart, but rather prioritize spending as much of their free time as possible in each other’s company.

Of course you can have great sex without being in love.
Of course you can be in love and not have great sex (or any erotic desire at all).
And… OF COURSE YOU CAN BE IN LOVE (and have lots of intimacy, trust, safety, connection, and trust) AND HAVE GREAT SEX (and autonomy, adventure, passion, and desire).