Stars in the sky, starfish in the sea, so what’s the poster star for terra firma? Starbucks? How about snowflakes? Snowflakes are stars with imagination, with attitudes and dash. Plenty of those landed last month in Mini-snow-da – make that Maxi-snow-da. And feedback from February’s Sullygram arrived in flurries like snowflakes. Reminded me of a scene in the Harry Potter flick where a snow owl delivers countless invitations from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and they shoot through the mail slot like snowflakes. True, my correspondence was email, but it was aswirl with emotions and deep with thoughts.

Valentines? Puh! Almost all of it was about DRUMMERS ON GLASS, my picaresque novel and its romances. Either #1, everyone I correspond with is a closet romantic, or #2, love lies bleeding in every heart the world over. What an experienced, wise family of friends and fans I have who continue to educate me as the world changes! So, at the request of several friends who regularly suggest I share more about relationship issues, I’ll distill some of February’s feedback for this month’s Sullygram.

More than ever, the tropes and cliches about the stages of love – especially over time – show themselves to be myths. There are no formulas. There is “average,” if you take a measure of stats and demographics (marriage, divorce, age differences, fidelity, children, lifestyles) for a given society at a given time. And then there is “normal,” which is different in every culture, society, religion, generation et al. One population’s hallowed tradition may be another’s depravity whether it’s polygamy, polyamory, monogamy, arranged marriages, plural sex, free sex, foot binding, chastity belts, open relationships and on and on. Even interbreeding has its moral equivalent (Tarons and Trogean Islanders). All by way of saying that every relationship has its uniqueness behind the sophisticated veneers and societal facades of oh-so sanctified modernity. So, thank you to all who confirmed that for me in last month’s responses.

If there was consensus in what you shared, it was that long-term relationships are more practical than romantic. OK, not surprising maybe, but I don’t mean just practical in material terms. We’re a long way from a woman going from her father’s house to her husband’s house. And bedmates have never been easier for men (over 60% of younger men are unmarried). So, how do you weigh flat-lined romance against segueing to something new? It’s the emotional component of practicality that’s hard to re-negotiate, if that isn’t a contradiction in terms. Because how do you dovetail shared experiences and perhaps a family with starting over? Continuity and relevance are the path of least resistance. It’s just convenient to be settled in with someone you’re used to. But when the emotional rapport isn’t resonating, starting over does have its attractions. It’s a dilemma that seems to be on the minds of many in long-term relationships.

And dealing with one’s own aging in relationships? According to the candor from my readers over the years, women have the harder adjustment, and not just biologically. Lots of disillusionment goes with aging, sometimes bitterness. But the libido is still there, still tied to emotional security. Ditto the man’s libido, tied more to physical stimulation. Seems to be a lot more available for a man’s satisfaction than there is for a woman’s.

And that’s paradoxical to me. You’d think emotional security would be less age-restrictive than physical attraction, yet marriages like Tina Turner (83) to Erwin Bach (67) are far less common than, say, Dick Van Dyke (97) to Arlene Silver (51). True, declining sexual interest is a myth among physically active people, but why do younger women seek out older men more often than younger men seek out older women? You’re laughing. OK, the motives are as obvious and shallow as cliches. But there’s something else. Across cultures, across history, the proclivity for males to value younger women is marked and often sanctified into religion or codified into law. Women as chattel, women kept, harems, mistresses, cinq à sept. You can condition societies to changing mores almost overnight, but evolutionary reflexes are bred in the bone.

All of which changes naught for single-minded romantic idealists. Didn’t hear from any of those. I’m also amazed at how people live with their doubts. In a sense, there is no infidelity. You get what you give, whether you know it or not. Passion exclusive to one partner is total passion. Share it simultaneously with another and you necessarily get subtraction by addition. So it comes out even. The good news is that a love that survives separation from passion is self-proving and constant. It can be purer, in fact, for its honesty. Passion lives in the moment. Love abides. Each day must die so that each night may live and vice-versa. It isn’t fidelity that proves honesty; it’s honesty that proves fidelity.

Yet, the biggest complaints from women still seem to be over unfaithful men or men who have no energy or who don’t communicate, leaving women bored and unfulfilled. Men I hear from rarely complain but pretty much fulfill what the women complain about. Their red line is physical fidelity, and how they perceive infidelity. Coming full circle sharing the feedback, the happiest relationships seem to communicate deeply and fully, especially those who feel understood as they grow.

Thanks for reading. Sharing your time is something I value. Here are a few photos to share with you… 

Thomas "Sully" Sullivan