One of the most radical transformations left by the pandemic is
living as a couple
.
For Esther Perel (1958, Antwerp), a famous Belgian psychotherapist, prolific writer and who, among other concepts, imposes that of
erotic intelligence
(under the idea of not feeling locked in a relationship to have sex), long-term desire and a new way of understanding infidelity (his podcast on this subject has almost 10 million views, although Covid did not manage to destroy solid relationships, it acted as "a bond accelerator by accumulating a lot of existential stress").
"Events of this type - he recounts in an exclusive chat with
Clarín
- put you in touch with the priorities of your life, with the real balance of what you proposed and what you still could not do, highlight the deviations, and erase the idea
of that there is still time to get what you want
. But, above all, it confronts you with the idea of knowing yourself better and understanding that
you can't keep waiting for what you want to be or have
."
Specialized in working on the tensions of love -dichotomies such as "I want to be with you, but I want freedom"-, she speaks nine languages and
is one of the 100 members of Oprah Winfrey's list of visionaries and influential leaders.
Among her books are "Captive Mating: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence" and "The State of Things: Rethinking Infidelity."
Esther Perel wrote several books on love relationships.
-Could we say that we are in a kind of postmodernity of links?
-Without a doubt.
We are facing, I think for the first time in history, honest questions about who we want to be with and how to do it.
The pandemic was very helpful in a particular sense: giving us time for reflection.
As a couple we have had the habit of blowing everything up too quickly, running the risk of wasting ties that could have been solvent for a large part of our lives;
or else we stand in the place of trying to make a couple stay together at all costs.
The daily dynamics of modernity did not give us much time to think: I continue because it is too complicated to separate or I separate because trying to fix things may involve too much effort.
Neither is a throwaway option, but they weren't based on reflection.
-Does it mean that we were together or alone, but without thinking about each other?
-Something like that.
I think the goal is to help those involved find clarity and responsibility, together or apart.
Either of the two cases are vital experiences that do not teach us to transit.
We learn the bumps.
It is good to be able to learn to say goodbye, to separate, to untie that knot that entangled them, to be able to account for what was given and taken away, and to have the ability to appreciate the positive that remains in order to feel free and move on to another stage.
The longevity of a relationship does not matter.
I've seen hundreds of eternal couples who were terribly miserable.
-You have said many times that one of the most complex steps is to get out of the scheme that places the blame on the other. Because?
-Because we detect the footsteps we receive in that dance that is to live as a couple.
We have turned the couple into the epicenter of happiness or failure.
My miseries would disappear if the other changed.
Since he doesn't, I still feel miserable.
This circle in which one expects the other to modify something that does not happen, does nothing but generate anger and resentment.
How come that person who is supposed to love me and who sees me in this state of sadness doesn't do what I know would make me happy?
This is a phenomenon of modernity: people are looking for a partner with whom they can experience a sense of fulfillment and meaning, who gives them transcendence.
Esther Perel focused on love and relationships.
-Too mystical look.
-Precisely, because it seems that we have subsumed religion or spirituality with marriage.
We have become devotees of “holy romanticism”.
In our generation we didn't expect the couple to fill in all the gaps.
We knew there were going to be battles we had to fight alone.
Marriage was not easier then, but there was less responsibility placed outside.
A current phenomenon is relational ambivalence: it's too good to go, but too bad to stay.
My mother's philosophy was based on the idea that relationships are about will and commitment.
We may not recognize it, but we all know the difference between a relationship that isn't dead and one that is alive: a relationship that survives and one that thrives.
-In your last book you talk about the lack of emotional schooling. How important is childhood in this process?
-It is key, because it is there, where abandonment, empathy, learning to receive and ask, to share and even to touch the other affectively were woven.
The quality of your relationships determines the quality of your life.
Not suffering does not mean that one knows how to feel pleasure.
And that is born in childhood.
Is it reversible?
Of course, but in addition to educating ourselves, we have the responsibility of not repeating history.
-The story of your parents (a couple who met after the war having survived the concentration camps) has been a strong inspiration in your work. Because?
-Because they learned to connect with their vitality as a source of trauma healing.
In the camps, people did theater, sang, made music, drew, made love in the most terrible circumstances.
They didn't wait to get out of there, it's what kept them alive.
-He has been in a relationship with the same person (Jack Saul, psychologist, with whom he has 2 children) since he was 23 years old. How did you know he was the one?
-We were good friends for two years before we got involved.
I realized that we had a deep connection, no one had ever talked to me on that level.
Later we had the agility to modify our dynamics and continue to reinvent ourselves.
I often joke that most of us will have three or four important relationships in our lives, and some of us will have them with the same person.
MY
look too
Back to normality: 5 keys to not lose eroticism as a couple after the holidays
Four out of ten Argentines know their partner's passwords: the most dangerous cases