July 5th, 2009
Question
I am 42 and have been married for ten years. We have no children. Last year I met a man who is basically my opposite, an almost-illiterate worker who had recently lost his job and whose idea of fun is to get drunk. He is also caring, kind, respectful, funny and generous.
We had just met when I had the occasion to give him some - non-monetary - help. This impressed him enormously. Although we live very far apart, he has made every effort to keep in touch, texting and phoning every day, sending cards and presents. Of course he knows I'm married. He's divorced with grown-up children. We met again recently and had a very pleasant time together. He told me he is in love with me.
I'm sure he likes me. But I think he also likes the general idea of having someone who cares about him, and to whom he can talk, as opposed to just getting drunk. Other than attention, he doesn't ask me for anything. My impression is that my existence in his life gives him some warmth and stability and a definite self-confidence boost. As for me, he gives me a refreshingly different point of view - my husband and friends are people like me - and I like spending time with him. There is also an undeniable element of physical attraction, although we've only shared a few kisses, never sex. My husband is a loyal companion, who works most of the time and does not display the slightest sexual interest in me or, as far as I know, in anybody else. He knows that I keep in contact with this other man.
Is our long-distance relationship good or bad for this man? On the one hand I am a friend he can confide in, someone who helps him a little. On the other hand, he's probably dreaming about an idyllic life-style with me, which is never going to happen. I like the interaction with him very much, and I think of him quite often, but I don't want to be selfish. And I cannot discuss this with anybody I know.
Answer
You do know, of course, that we're talking about a modern take on Lady Chatterley's lover here. There's texting, phoning and meals in restaurants, but it's still the lady and the farm labourer isn't it? And it's definitely still all about sexual hunger.
The primary question, therefore, is not about whether this relationship is good or bad for your would-be lover. What are you going to do about that huge gap in your life - the husband who is a good companion but not a sexual partner. And it's not just a question of failing to have sex with you, for whatever reason. Your husband isn't interested in you as a woman, as a wife and companion yes, but not as a woman. He knows of your ongoing involvement with your almost-illiterate worker, and isn't pushed. It's not just that sex isn't happening in your marriage. It's relevance is being denied. Feelings are deemed not to exist. A large part of you is declared dead. Not good.
The point I'm making is that this dalliance is not about the other man. It's about your marriage. It's about the gaping hole at the centre of your existence. It's about how you intend to live the next 40-odd years of your life. Because believe me, even though a woman may no longer want the actuality of sex, or not want it with any real intensity, she still needs to be seen a woman. This problem won't go away by gardening, doing good works, or drinking gin and tonics. And it certainly be solved by a long-distance dalliance, which seems safe because it's socially so unthinkable.
There is also something else. We make much of the wrath of a woman scorned. It is as nothing compared to the wrath of a man rejected because of inferior social standing. You may see an unbridgeable gap. Don't be so sure that he does. He knows he meets an important emotional gap in your life. He may also be prepared to take is slowly and softly, paced by you. He may not, however, agree that your emotions should be sidelined in the service of social standing. He may not step easily aside. Tread carefully.
