|
The Other Woman: What A Mistress Knows
A former mistress offers hard-learned advice to new wives.
by Michael Drury
The strongest thing I felt was recognition, as if I had known this man very long ago. I knew he was married and, for reasons not mine to disclose, would never of his own accord undo it. You may say that what I did was selfish and that, I think, is true, but not in the way that word is commonly construed. Very little of any moment happens until self-interest is aroused—no wealth or power or art or faith or government; what men and nations desire rules the world. Right and wrong are absolutes, and human beings seldom have the luxury of absolute choice between them. Given the forces that were released simply by our encounter—and that much was not our doing—was it more or less brave to yield to them, along with their concomitants of taste, restraint, the abrasion of disapproval from ourselves and others? One thing I learned was that human beings make decisions as wisely as they can, and then make them right or wrong by the terms on which they live with those decisions.
Being love does not demand mental censorship, but it requires a certain pruning of one’s thoughts. Second-guessing, agonizing, leaping to unwarranted conclusions are killers of the dream. A mistress who would let her mind run riot on such fripperies would be dispossessed next week. She does not torture the relationship by constant scrutiny. There are a dozen valid reasons why any love affair should not exist, so that reasoning about it, pro or con, is at least contradictory. But all love is a lingua franca not reducible to grammar, married love included.
Have care for the loose talk inside your head. It reflects in a hundred subtle ways: a tone of voice, a glance, a gesture, the things you choose to laugh at, the quickness or slowness of response. All this in turn governs the quality and amount of love you will allow, and thus the kind you get. I do not say a mistress is above these same mistakes, only that she does not keep making them over and over; she doesn’t get the chance.
It is critical to understand that intelligence and love do not blockade one another. I have known men and women, both married and not, who all their lifetime have borne the grief of not knowing real love, and yet they keep the word abstract. They expect love to be a mystical magical something unrelated to whatever other powers they may have. They carry in their heads a line from bad novels: “If you have to think about it, it isn’t love.” Nonsense.
That is like saying if you have to study, it is not talent.
 (4 votes, average: 5 out of 5) Loading ... |
Email to a Friend
Share on Facebook
Digg It
Delicious
Newsvine
Stumble
Reddit
1 cris // Mar 21, 2008 at 6:26 pm
No disagreement, read more slowly, although it would be nice to think people could grow together and continue to love each other… even be sexually faithful. If this was written 50 years ago, marriage was much more “secure” then when people didn’t divorce at the proverbial drop of a hat. Also, back then, it was an economic arrangement for most women. Several factors to consider. Personally, I had a bad role model for marriage. My parents are still together, though they’ve been unhappy for decades. (the catholic thing, I suppose). Because I never knew of a loving marriage growing up, I didn’t marry. Never even considered it in spite of several offers. Well, I did think about it once. Never wanted children either. I’ve been happily independent all my life, but might consider marriage in my old age IF the right person comes along.
2 read more slowly // Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55 pm
It was indeed a difficult piece to comprehend but one that was, nonetheless, comprehendible. I try not to fault a writer for being too wordy, especially when the writer is attempting to communicate something more profound than simple phrases and sentences can communicate. I got the sense that this is what Drury was doing. I don’t think she’s exactly saying that marriage kills love (cris), and just because it was written “50 years ago” (lannie and charlotte) doesn’t make it less relevant today. What she is saying is that marriage doesn’t necessarily have to do with love. Love is about being with someone who allows us or assists us to follow our (other) desires and to more fully develop into whole, independent beings. And love does not require promises of tomorrow; love is not about the future or security but about the present. Marriage, on the other hand, creates a false sense of security that the love one feels today is the same feeling one will feel tomorrow. Again, marriage doesn’t necessarily kill love. It can serve its purpose at particular times in our lives - it helps us grow in the same way our childhood experiences helped us grow. But, we have to recognize that things (feelings, people and thus marriages) change over time, and it is illusory and counter-productive to think otherwise. Some of us may realize that “our” marriage (those who decide to marry) no longer serves us. But when we realize our marriage is “over”, we must be able to recognize ourselves as whole, independent beings - ie, people who take responsibility for our own circumstances, our own choices and our own outcomes. But alas, she laments, people seem to choose marriage (security) over love (less secure but more fulfilling). I think it’s a beautiful piece, and very wise. Thank you.
3 robert // Mar 20, 2008 at 8:28 pm
That was profoundly eloquent but ultimately without any real substance. I was almost convinced that it had been written by a word generator by the time I reached the end. It just seemed to ramble about nothing… like a sentence with no subject.
4 cris // Mar 19, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I agree with several other posts; that writer must have been paid by the word. Rambling, practically incoherent. There was no real point except, apparently, its better to be a mistress than to be married because marriage kills love. That’s certainly true in some cases, but cannot be said for all marriages. This piece could have been reduced to one paragraph. What a waste of space. I forced myself to finish it, but it was a chore. Good Grief!! As for “love guvs”, a love affair with a mistress is not the same as hiring a hooker.
5 Nina // Mar 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I don’t care who wrote that, the gender of the author or when it was written- That was ridiculous. My god, who could read the whole book?
Read All 11 Comments on The Other Woman: What A Mistress Knows