The Folly of Fools (18 page)

There is evidence that women’s behavior may heighten male illusion of female interest. When in experiments the two sexes are introduced for the first time for a ten-minute videotaped session together, female courtship behavior is higher in the first minute (e.g., nodding) but unassociated with any actual interest. Such behavior is associated with interest only in the later stages (four to ten minutes), so that women appear to display interest before they develop it. This will give men the illusion of interest before it develops and, indeed, female nodding behavior in the first minute predicts male talking in the later stages.

MALE DENIAL OF HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES

It has long been argued that denying one’s homosexual impulses will cause one to project them onto others. It is as if we detect some homosexual content in our immediate world, and denying our own portion, we go looking for it in others. That this homosexual denial can lead to homosexual aggression is not surprising, because someone else’s homosexual content may be a direct threat to our own hidden identity—do we respond, in spite of ourselves, to an attractive young man with a bouffant hairdo and a woman’s perfume? We had better attack him before anyone notices our arousal. This is also sometimes called a reaction-formation. What is attractive to the self but unacceptable is disdained and denied for self but attacked aggressively when seen in others. A man thereby supports his image of heterosexuality by attacking homosexuals.

Recent work supports this kind of dynamic. In the United States, A-1 heterosexual men by Kinsey criteria—no homosexual behavior, no homosexual thoughts or feelings (or so they say)—were divided into those who were relatively homophobic, that is, upset and hostile toward homosexuals, and those who were relatively relaxed and unconcerned.

The fun part came when these men got to watch three six-minute erotic movies—a man and a woman making love, two women, and two men—while a plethysmograph attached to the base of each penis measured penile circumference very precisely. In addition, after the film, each man was asked how erect and how sexually aroused he had been. An interesting result emerged. Relatively homophobic and non-homophobic men responded similarly to the heterosexual and lesbian films, strong arousal to each, but more so for the heterosexual. It was only the male homosexual film that revealed a divergence. Non-homophobic men showed a small but insignificant increase in penis size, but homophobic men showed steady penis size growth throughout, reaching two-thirds the level seen in their response to the two women. Interviews afterward showed that everyone had an accurate view of the degree of his penile enlargement and arousal (which were highly correlated), except for the homophobic men viewing the male-homosexual scenario. They denied their tumescence and arousal. Whether they were actually conscious of this is unknown.

IS SELF-DECEPTION GOOD OR BAD FOR MARRIAGE?

There are two extreme forms of deception in a relationship where sex and love are concerned. The sex is great and you have to fake the love, or the love is real but you have to fake the sex. By the time we are thirty, we have all been in these situations. When we have to fake the sex, we often invoke fantasy, a prior partner, an imagined partner, an imagined sexual act. Whatever gets us off. Note that these relations are especially dangerous to the partner. If the partner is unaware of your own true reactions, he or she will be unprepared for the betrayal that so likely awaits. On the other side, it may be much harder to fake love when there is strong sexual interest. Low-love relationships are apt to be more volatile, open hostility coexisting with passionate sex.

The simple answer to the question about the effect of self-deception in a marriage is that it depends on the kind of self-deception. Self-deception of a positive, couple-reinforcing form appears to be beneficial, while self-deception associated with resolution of one’s own cognitive dissonance in the conventional self-serving ways appears to have the opposite effect—over-affirmation versus distancing. The aphorism that you should go into marriage with both eyes open and, once in it, keep one eye shut captures part of the reality. When you are deciding whether to commit, weigh costs and benefits equally; when you have committed, try to be positive and not dwell on every little negative detail.

Consider first the positive form of self-deception. Couples last longer if they tend to overrate each other compared to the other’s self-evaluation. This has an appealingly romantic ring—“I love you, darling, more than you love yourself, and thereby uplift you.” Effects work on both sides. The more you overrate the other, the longer you stay together, and vice versa. Assuming long life together is a benefit, over-valuation is beneficial.

People have a bias toward seeing improvement in the relationship over time even if this is achieved by exaggerating how bad the past was (compared to evaluations of the present). Once the past is misremembered, the memory of progress is established and relationships with greater memories of improvement last longer. It is important to emphasize that we can’t discriminate cause and effect. Self-deception may improve relationship satisfaction and duration, or it may accompany other factors that do. Perhaps success breeds self-deception (of the positive sort).

Evidence suggests that marital satisfaction declines linearly over time, but people have a biased memory—they remember early declines in satisfaction but more recent increases that offset the early decreases. In one study, both spouses reported steady increases in relationship satisfaction over two and a half years while none could be detected. By the end of the time, though, memories were readjusted so as to remember no improvement in the more distant past, only in the more recent.

In contrast, processes of self-justification within individuals make unity between the two more difficult so that, in the extreme, self-justification may be seen as an “assassin” of marriage. That is, active processes of self-justification appear to work against marital unity in a major way. Again, we do not know cause and effect. Is self-deception causing the disruption, or only facilitating it?

What we do know is that patterns of self-justification can be diagnostic. In trying to predict which couples would stay together three years later, scientists enjoyed surprising success based on studying the interaction between the two people during recorded sessions. Those who rewrote history in a more thoroughly negative way were predicted to break up. On this basis alone, the scientists correctly predicted all seven marital breakups, while incorrectly predicting three breakups that did not occur. They correctly predicted the other forty non-breakups, for a remarkable overall correct prediction rate of 94 percent. Though none discussed separation, some couples already talked as if they had forgotten why they married in the first place and were deep into processes of self-justification that appeared to function to reduce the dissonance of being in a bad marriage (while, of course, doing nothing to repair it). Other students of marriage claim to notice that when the ratio of positive to negative acts toward the partner drops below 5:1, the marriage is in trouble.

THE APPEAL AND DANGER OF FANTASY

Fantasy is an inviting and treacherous activity. It is deeply rooted in our biology. From our earliest years, we practice it spontaneously, with great pleasure, and it is easily encouraged by others. We create an artificial world and then choose to live in it. The fantasy typically replaces reality in a positive way—things would be better if the fantasy were true. For example, our five years of 24/7 work in the laboratory is, in fact, Nobel-quality work. As we do it, we can enjoy the return benefits sure to come our way later. Short of inducing fraud on our part, the fantasy may, in fact, improve the quality of our work. What the actual trade-off in additional fantasy-fueled labor and output is really worth, measured in other lost opportunities, is another matter, especially as the fantasy fails to pan out.

And what about the downside? Consider a romantic fantasy. That woman far away is, in fact, your wife-to-be, if not (in full delusional mode) your very soul mate. Now you can pour it on full time in the lab, certain that your romance and (future) sexual life are taken care of. You may send a portion of your earnings to your beloved every week and tell her that since you cannot show your love to her more directly, you take joy in showing it by sending her money. She
will
be pleased. She will be so pleased she may encourage you in your fantasy. In fact, she may have created it almost single-handedly in the first place.

Jamaicans have a term for this form of manipulation, called having a “boops.” A boops is typically an older man who supports a young woman—her rent, electricity bill, runaround expenses, perhaps a small car—while receiving minimal sexual favors in return, only the fantasy of what soon will be his. In the optimal case, he receives no sex at all—the more fevered to keep his imagination and the more rewarding his behavior. Once caught up in his fantasy, he hardly wishes to question it. Contrary evidence that in other situations would put you immediately on guard or at least warrant some study is easily brushed aside (say, failure to receive any Christmas present at all while lavishing major ones on her). As one psychiatrist put it, “You do not want little, niggling details of reality to interfere with a good fantasy.”

Now that someone else is driving your fantasy, it may carry you far from your true interests. Yes, you do wonderful lab work for six months, but if you have really bought into your fantasy, you are suffering numerous immediate costs and must someday suffer a painful de-fantasization in order to reconnect yourself with your actual interests. There can be no doubt that sexual and romantic fantasies, unfulfilled, must rank as among the most costly. Not only is a greater portion of your potential reproductive success on the line, but so is your vulnerability.

THE PAIN OF BETRAYAL

If deceit and self-deception in the family have the deepest effects on one’s life, then those concerning sex are the most painful. There is nothing like sexual betrayal for pure pain—nothing like learning a loved partner is betraying you left, right, and center to split your soul in two. Deception and self-deception coming from early family life may be associated with pain akin to chronic arthritis, but with sexual betrayal, the pain is more like being hit by a truck. I believe this is true for both sexes.

There are at least three elements to this. First, the reversal in fortune can be very large—a child assumed to be your own is not, a life of love assumed to be two-sided goes in one direction only. Second, the (so-called) betrayal often rests on a bed of lies, of willful deception that may have gone on for months or years. You have played your part in all of this, by believing the lies—often with active self-deception or at the very least with failure to show due diligence.

Finally, the deceptions reach in all directions. Many lies in life are largely between you and the liar. Sexual lies inevitably encompass others, sometimes dozens of others who know a side of your life that you do not, increasing the degree of public shame. For a truly extreme example, consider the dreadful case of Elin Woods, who had to endure the knowledge that her husband, Tiger, had sex regularly with a waitress who worked across the street—at a diner they frequented—seduced the daughter of a next-door neighbor, a family she had known for several years, employed numerous people to hide his sexual life who also interacted directly with her, and then—to top it all off—let a billion people in on the secret. Arnold Schwarzenegger has now pulled off his own stunt along these lines, also available for full public enjoyment.

Why is sex so often associated with shame? One reason is that sexual activity often acts against self-interest directly—the damaged self. This includes, in principle, masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality—all sexual behavior that fails to benefit self. Unrelated individuals will have no direct self-interest but relatives will—their self-interest is directly harmed by your sexual misbehavior, as may be their reputation. So they may feel special pressure to shame you.

In principle, your inappropriate sexual behavior can upset many individuals.

Again the contrast with the family offers insight. We could have grown up under complete subjugation while being sold an ideology of equality, but usually we fall somewhere along a continuum of relative domination and misrepresentation. But infidelity (like pregnancy) is not spread along a continuum. You either are unfaithful or you are not—pregnant or not. The reversal of fortune is often absolute.

Perhaps you say to yourself, “What’s the appropriate reward for someone who has lied to me, disrespected me, and plundered from me for two years?” and strangulation comes to mind. But should you not strangle yourself as well? Every deception was received and ignored by you. Your own self-deception was manipulated against you, probably both consciously and unconsciously by your partner. The two of you made that bed and lay in it.

There is often some kind of relationship between the family situation you grew up in and the one you find yourself in. Surely some of the resemblance is both genetic and through imitation. But there are also logically related effects of a different kind. Chris Rock, the American comedian, likes to joke that every woman has “a daddy problem” and you, her current partner, have to pay the price. Imagine dating a woman and taking her one day from an abusive relationship with her father. At first she will be happy, but with any hint that a man strong enough to do that could dominate her worse than her father in other ways, you have a problem on your hands.

Sexually induced pain is presumably greater the more intimate a couple have been—probably independent of the chance of propagation. Why? Imagine a sex life of relatively modest physical commitment—an embrace, a few kisses, the man climbs on top, and the two enjoy a good copulation. Contrast this with lovemaking that involves the intimate exploration of and numerous loving acts toward the body of the other person, and vice versa. After betrayal, the second is the much more painful of the two, loss in the pleasure of intimacy being the greater and also suggesting greater long-term love lost. And the greater intimacy is more painful to your imagination on both sides—he now has done those things with someone else, giving you a stabbing pain, and you also did such-and-such with him and he has gone elsewhere.