Register Now!
 
LOG IN  |  SIGN UP
25
 REGULARS
















August 8, 2002 Browse the Lisa Files Archives |


Everyone's a cheater. We vary only in the definitions we can live with. For me, it's not really cheating if you tell your mate first. For others, it's okay if you screw around with the gender opposite of your spouse; if you only do it upright; if you only do it in stairwells and truckstops; if it's strictly above the waist; or strictly below (meaning you don't fall in love). In a world filled with Rules books on getting a man and then pleasing him in bed, on creating the perfect wedding (and then how to quit being so demanding and thus save your marriage), a giddy treatise on the fine art of cheating should be refreshing. Should be. Sadly, there's something oddly puritanical about The 50-Mile Rule: Your Guide to Infidelity and Extramarital Etiquette. Its pro-cheating author, Judith Brandt, supposedly opens the window to air out a taboo subject, but I found her view of extramarital affairs insidiously conservative. Or at least very French.


    

Brandt spends most of the book scientifically excusing affairs — supposedly you're driven to them by your genes (a different combo of your DNA and another person's might make better carriers than the crop of children you've raised with current spouse) — and never once actually shows us a juicy, science-free, sweaty, dark afternoon cheat. By page two, this how-to book on guilt-free philandering has made an illicit romp sound as intriguing as urinating in a bowl away from home.


    

I know that when you cheat, dear reader, it's different. You're an intellectual, you're an anarchist, you're on drugs. Oh wait, instead of "drugs," I meant to say you're "redefining the boundaries of love." Brandt never met anyone like you, though. The 50-Mile Rule seems only to address one type of cheater — The Jerk. I can totally picture Brandt's cheater. He loves to quote that line about why you shouldn't buy the cow when you get the milk for free. He thinks the fact that his wife gained a little weight and no longer calls him "King" mid-act is just cause to despise and lie to her. I don't know if this guy actually exists. If the impressionable female reader were to believe this scenario, then her husband must be That Jerk, because that's the nature of man. Having learned from Brandt that love is a biological mirage, she will get insecure and angry and eat a lot of food, until she has become The Shrew that is every wife in the pages of The 50-Mile Rule.


    

Marriage, according to Brandt, follows a four-to-five-year curve of Infatuation, Attachment, Disillusion and Dissolution. Wives get fat and stop giving blowjobs mere days after the vows are taken; husbands start farting contests with their nephews. Still, this excruciatingly boring institution — this fat and farty and blowjob-free hellhole — must be preserved for the sake of the kids, the house and one's standing in the community. So, if you're going to have an affair — and really, do you have a choice? — you just need not to get caught. The 50-Mile Rule refers to how far, for safety's sake, one's lover should live from one's spouse. Brandt's other practical tips include, "take your used condom with you." Why? So your conniving cheat partner won't squeeze its contents into the turkey baster after you leave and "slap" you with a paternity suit.


    

Although the author claims her book is for male and female cheaters, she seems mainly concerned with reassuring married men that their desire to dally is perfectly healthy. In a postscript chapter, she warns women that although it's acceptable to have an affair with these older, wiser fellows, you'd better realize he's not going to marry you and thus preserve your
tremulous little heart. She doesn't even consider that sometimes men might have shaking hearts. When married women cheat, Brandt would have us believe, it's mainly to cuckold their provider-hubby.


    

It's a dismal world, in Brandt's eyes! These are her prototypical couples: Tanya is "average" and (here's Brandt's favorite descriptor) "boring." Bob takes her out and "puts up with her yakking long enough to get laid." Then there's Tom, whose wife is "the best he could do at the time, but no great shakes." He doesn't leave her because of the children — despite the fact that they are "a little disappointing" — but he will try a new genetic combo with Tanya, and then try to escape responsibility for raising that baby. Tom or Bob will sleep with Tanya (despite her yakking), because their unconscious genetic map tells them that they must-spread-seed! This is followed by message number two: Must-escape-responsibility-for-sown-seed! Brandt reminds us — not twice, not thrice, but four times in one book — our children carry the banner. I've heard of cynicism, and I've seen people (Hi Dad!) blame the biological imperative for all their dumb, mean actions. But this little red-and-black book has got to be the ugliest example.


    

Like other instruction manuals, The 50-Mile Rule includes gray boxes of important information, such as: "Men get the best women they can afford, and women get the best men their looks can attract." Hm. Both of my husbands made less money than me. Come to think of it, they were both better-looking, too. The 50-Mile Rule is as archaic and stereotypical as is The Rules, only it's aimed at men — aging, cheap, dissembling, jerk men — instead of the wimps who love them. Perhaps Brandt's conceptions of the sexes and how they interact does apply to people out there — but I don't know any of them. Most of them no doubt died already, because they were born a hundred years ago. In real life, motivations are more perplexing. Look at Billy Bob Thornton. After he married Angelina Jolie, she got even skinnier — and I just
know she never nagged — and he still cheated on her.


    

I'm not against cheating wholesale. I am against such wanton misery in any context. I read The 50-Mile Rule in two afternoons of swinging on the hammock, my four-week-old clamped to my breast, patting me with her tiny hands, occasionally lifting her head to
spit up politely through the holes in the hammock netting. On the portable phone, my husband called once or twice each day to see if I needed anything. I can only describe the feeling on that hammock as: Yellow. A rich and dripping-down happiness that must have been meant for someone else, someone with bigger, browner eyes than mine and kinder intentions, someone more deserving. I love marriage! I've loved my affairs too. In the most buoyant moments of both — of doing very wrong and doing very right —
there's a feeling of gratefulness and awareness that is more than simply giving in to a chemical/biological urge. I think the problem with Brandt's premise (and the problem with Fein & Schneider's The Rules) might be that cheating and marriage, like voodoo or underwear, is much more powerful when it's not peered at with too clear a gaze. Does anyone really want total cultural acceptance of their own lie-filled rebellion (It's not you, dear — it's your genes.)? We don't need a how-to book on being bad better. We need the guilt, the mystery, the corrosion of our heart and its rebirth.

 





ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Lisa Carver is the author of the books Dancing Queen, Rollerderby, The Lisa Diaries and Drugs Are Nice. She's written for Hustler, Index, Icon, Feed, Newsday and Playboy, among others. She lives in New Hampshire.

©2002


Lisa Carver and hooksexup.com, Inc.

Comments ( 25 )

great article!

mk commented on Aug 08 02 at 7:43 am

Hello Lisa. Nice to see something by you again. You're particular brand of quasi evil was greatly missed.

MJO commented on Aug 08 02 at 8:17 am

"We don't need a how-to book on being bad better. We need the guilt, the mystery, the corrosion of our heart and its rebirth."

We need the guilt? That's pretty fucked up. Well...or we just need to accept the challenge of keeping our marriages exciting, and avoid the temptation of cheating instead of being weak and giving in!

Truly, some of the Hooksexup content is wonderful and stimulating. But when articles begin to justify ignoring the vows of marriage to benefit one's sexual excitement, I think it's gone too far. I see plenty of intellectually lazy, spineless moral and ethical stances around me, from Enron to G.W. Bush. I don't need to see more of it on hooksexup.com.

KDL commented on Aug 08 02 at 10:37 am

i don't think that ms. carver's comment about how we "need the guilt, the mystery, the corrosion of our heart and its rebirth" can reasonably be taken as spineless or amoral, as one commentator would have it. while i agree with KDL that an imperative is to continually infuse one's relationship with excitement lest it grow stale (and for which, pardon the shilling, i think Hooksexup can be a wellspring of great benefit), one should not blame ms. carver for not discoursing on marriage in a manner akin to phyllis schlafly. the purpose of this site is to explore the spectrum of human sexuality; cheating happens to be one such area. and ms. carver was correct in noting that the transgressive aspect of marital infidelity, the knowledge that one is doing wrong and could, and perhaps should, get caught, provides at least as much erotic charge as does the presence of new and unfamiliar flesh. if one want commentators singing unalloyed paeons to monogomy, there are no shortage of sources. but let Hooksexup do what it does well: talking about the role sex actually plays in people's lives without promulgating a specific morality.

rwp commented on Aug 08 02 at 3:03 pm

Lisa is right on. Being mature about one's emotional and sexual health go a long way toward fulfilling what one needs in their lives. The problem is with applying what one wants onto another person. They will have their own motivation, so go with the flow and accept what you can.

BI commented on Aug 08 02 at 3:22 pm

Is this the Lisa Carver who recorded with Smof on Forgotten Foundation?

Your Friend,
A.W

AW commented on Aug 08 02 at 11:12 pm

Smog.

commented on Aug 08 02 at 11:13 pm

Dummies have been philandering for years and the world is only the worse for it. What we could use are some excrutiatingly honest men with themselves and with "their" women - pre-marriage, and during mating formation - so that informed couples wait for marriage until they are "ready" for the mutual commitment that marriage requires to be successfully called a marriage. Being "nudged" into marriage, or without the education of what kinds of effort is required to choose a suitable spouse where commitment might be feasible could avoid the guilt, dishonesty, and machinations necessary to sustain affairs to satisfy unmet yearnings that result in philandering. Consistent philandering is very likely a very poor marriage, or a very ill person unable to make real attachments rooted in self respect and the ability to discern value (& that's just men). For women, uncertain directions in life or lack of introspection along with lack of education can lead to very unhappy lives through which philandering may seem preferable but generally leads to self-disrespect that can erode to self hate. Generally, the longer the planned marriage, the longer the self examination period needed to be applied to a potential mate, especially if children are contemplated. Short marriages (commitments) require little and often yield little, or abusive situations at best.

pb commented on Aug 09 02 at 2:12 am

Smog, yes.

lcc commented on Aug 09 02 at 6:15 am

Reductionist, cynical, fatalistic, formulaic takes on sex, the sexes, and human behavior can sometimes feel accurate and emotionally satisfying in a grumbling, pat answer conspiracy theory sort of way, the irrefutable trump cards of solitaire. Sometimes in my backwash out they spew, then comes relief for there is room once more for the open-ended field of complex, three-dimensional, never-fully-explained human behavior, which can be boiled down to no formula. Thanmk you for a wise and wonderful article.

cp commented on Aug 10 02 at 4:36 pm

Great review. Thanks.

cc commented on Aug 13 02 at 2:39 pm

monogamy and non-monogamy are nice painful tricky and horrible. what i'm wondering is why you're giving so much attention to and explanation against such an obviously stupid book. from the beginnig it's clear how it's outdated and reductive. so who cares? what about your own views on how it can work? i'm sure everyone either knows or can imagine the pleasures of a 'dark, sweaty, afternoon cheat' but what about the cheated-on's pain, confusion, jealousy etc? all of which have a very distinct life of their own and can take over in predictable but way too powerful ways. what to do about them?
ideas not rules...
p.s. congratulations on the girl

K commented on Aug 13 02 at 6:55 pm

Having been on the side of the wrong-doer, I personally think that anyone that would condone cheating by trying to blame it on genetic make up is about as intelligent as a rock. Genes do not cause a person's heart or mind to stray. What makes them stray is a lack of committment on their part. I have never known of a man, or a woman for that matter, that would turn down sex (illicit or extra-marital) when it was blatantly put in front of them. It would take a very strong person in order to do so. Since my affair, I have been attempting to rebuild the trust that I violated. Yes, my wife found out about it. Why? Because, after 10 years, she knows me well enough to know when I'm doing something that is not in our--collective...not the decadant, hurtful, and evil attitude of the author--interests. Speaking from experience, anyone that would openly go out and buy that book is wasting their money...affairs do not work. Either you wind up falling in love with the other woman/man, they wind up falling in love with you, or (worst case) you wind up with someone that is very likely to chop the head off a rabbit, throw the body in a tub of hot water and put the head on to boil. Yes, I'm referring to the penultimate example of why you should not have an affair--the movie "Fatal Attraction." So, boys and girls, let's all remember that it takes two to tango, but only one to royally screw up a marriage. And an affair is the simplest and easiest way to screw up a marriage. If you aren't ready for marriage, don't say "I do." If you want to sew your wild oats, don't commit to something that will prevent that prior to sewing said oats. And it doesn't matter if you get caught or not...it's just plain wrong. Okay?

HLM commented on Aug 14 02 at 3:04 pm

wrong wrong wrong
peace of mind + total intimate freedom = full life / what matters. Double Games - done that and been there- are boring. Clime, run, and explore with no luggage!

pb commented on Aug 14 02 at 8:55 pm

Thank you for your review on the book. I agree that there is more to our attraction and wanderings. For myself I seem to be incomplete without a lover. I stay with each lover for 2 to 5 years. Some have been my lovers through more then one marriage. I would be happy to explore the reason and process of the outside of marriage relationships. The whys and the hows. I've learned alot about myself through these relationships. And I am very glad I had them. Mistakes and all., Maybe you shold write a book. People need to know and to have a place to get insight into themselves. Lofe is a good thing.

EJK commented on Aug 15 02 at 5:55 pm

"Wanton Misery" ought to have its own book - it's a very catchy phrase so often appropo.

pbr commented on Aug 15 02 at 7:11 pm

It drives me crazy when people take one line from an entire article, or the Koran, or the Consititution, quote it, and then refer to it OUT OF CONTEXT. Not bothering to digest the sentences before it, in this case, completely obscures the message I believe the author intended. *grin*

"Does anyone really want total cultural acceptance of their own lie-filled rebellion? ...We don't need a how-to book on being bad better. We need the guilt, the mystery, the corrosion of our heart and its rebirth."

Just looking at this first sentence, my answer is a profound and resounding "NO!" How could anyone rebel, if their rebellion was culturally accepted? Some marriages are made and saved by such transgressions. Some people move on to live happier lives. Some people die. When did cheating become anyone elses business but the cheaters and the others involved? (Oh--that's right, during the 1992 Presidential Campaign and the Impeachment process that followed!)

"We don't need a how-to book on being bad better," explains why "We need the guilt"; i.e., why a CHEATER needs the guilt, not the one who has been CHEATED ON. "We need the mystery" not a pseudo-scientific explanation that can not be proven because "the guilt" and "the mystery" combine to "corrode our hearts." Eventually, this leads to the "rebirth[ing]" process OF THE cheater's heart.

Well, I feel much better now that I have explained what all those commas meant in the last sentence. Sheesh.

kjaz commented on Aug 16 02 at 10:51 am

What on earth is This Is Pop! in the author's resume and does it actually exist?

commented on Aug 17 02 at 1:44 am

I agree with Lisa in that it seem unimaginable that someone would write a how-to book, particularly aimed at men, on something people, especially men, have been doing for all time. I can only imagine that the author was trying to be facetious. Lisa's take on cheating is interesting to me. Everyone i know, absolutely fumes at the thought of being cheated on. I have never met anyone with Lisa's sentiments. Even if they act like it's not the end-all, when it happens, they would like nothing better, in the moments of realization, than to be swallowed by the earth.

N.S. commented on Aug 17 02 at 3:08 am

I love rwp's description of cheater's guilt: "The knowledge that one is doing wrong and could, and perhaps should, get caught, provides at least as much erotic charge as does the presence of new and unfamiliar flesh." It's almost like the cheater is cheating on his or her CHEAT PARTNER by thinking about the spouse so intensely before, during and/or right after the act (even if they're angry, scared thoughts -- what's more passionate than fear and fury?). Perhaps every cheat is a cheat within a cheat.

Lisa commented on Aug 17 02 at 6:10 am

Hooksexup and Reviewer:

Interesting review! You surprise me, Hooksexup, with your contributor's intellect.
I heard this was only a "kiddie-gosh- I'm cool!" site (hooksexup.com).

Whether I agree or disagree with the reviewer isn't as important as
the fact that it's refreshing to hear these things openly and honestly discussed;
especially by someone emotionally and intellectually developed, as the reviewer.

Thanks for sending it! (I'll brobably browse the book anyhow - smile)

Richard

RW commented on Aug 18 02 at 6:07 am

lisa, how can i email you?

jv commented on Aug 27 02 at 4:04 am

commented on Aug 28 02 at 2:56 pm

Lisa,

Damn if you didn't hit nail right on the head.

Cheating shouldn't be a civilised transaction, like getting haircut or buying a big screen TV.

SJ commented on Sep 05 02 at 10:11 pm

Thanks for your very literate and entertaining report. I would read articles more often if other writers could write as well as you do.

r. commented on Oct 07 02 at 3:33 pm

Leave a Comment