We're talking once again about the old saw that couples must keep the "spark" in relationships. In fact, the idea of infusing "spark" into a relationship only makes me celestially anxious. It's as if we're supposed to reinvent a comfortable relationship into one that has an "edge"--or one, rather, that once had us on edge. It's a no-win proposition: You can't unknow someone. Oh, and watch gender differences click in when you ask people how they think they should put the spark back. Ask a man, and he'll think immediately of Ciala commercials. Or jewelry. As if thirty-six hours and a new bracelet are spark and not plain endurance.
Asking a woman to inject spark into her relationship makes her think face lift. And then thong. Why? Because your culture equates "spark" with newness, youth, beginnings, which makes us reflexively believe that any other kind of woman (besides a young one) is sexual dud, doomed to put out, not start, fires. A woman who is not in a new relationship and hence is not "new" herself, starts to worry about she appears; as if changing her appearance (and her underthings) will change the dynamic between her lover (who is also not new, by the way) and herself.
Jewelry and thongs, face lifts and Cialis, are all fine--but they have little to do with correcting the "boredom" we hear about in relationships. The idea of asking couples to please each other with these generic tools, well, they feel like odd, loose ends; unconnected pieces of a huge puzzle. If they're elements in a decision to talk more, have more fun together, play more--even a movie and a pizza would do for me, if I lived down there--then reinjecting "spark" doesn't sound so impossible, so sadly undo-able. Because "spark," my friends, is sex--right? And what is sex if not adult play?
TLG
Comments