So, what’s in your hope chest? Aw, c’mon now, you have a hope chest, some place where you stowed the dreams that never quite died. Sure, sure, they may be shot through the heart a little, bleeding a little, but they’re still breathing in that stuffy hope chest, so you might as well open that sucker up and let some air in. Unopened hope chests become coffins.     

The last time you were dazzled is probably the last time you were young at heart. Try this. Every time you catch yourself being cynical or not daring to hope or refusing to let the world see you smile, chastise yourself in the same tone that adults once used to tell you “you’re not old enough”…only say: “I’m not young enough to smile.” Bet you don’t get through a whole day without re-learning the kind of smile that bursts your “chest” with hope.

It used to take exotic things to dazzle me. Things like emerald lightning in an inky sky or showers of golden sparks from a campfire raining UP to the stars! Now it’s often things that simply stir my thoughts. A while ago I was looking at an old watch with a perpetual calendar, marveling at its relentless sweep hand and breathlessly ticking gears within gears that try so valiantly to keep up with the eternal clock of the Universe. But then mechanical Time smoothed into something without ripples in my mind, something more generic and philosophical:     

Night, Dawn, Day, Dusk. Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall. Nature divides Time into foursomes, and whether it’s 24 hours or 365 days, the aim is the same. NIGHT & WINTER: a suspension of sunlight while life recovers, heals and gestates. DAWN & SPRING: rebirth and fresh starts. DAY & SUMMER: prime living. DUSK & FALL: a time to reflect, connect the dots and harvest what was sown. Repeat, repeat, repeat….   

We tap into those immutable cycles of nature, customizing our own sequences – marriages, careers, parenting – and those vary greatly. Intermingling our destinies with others expands or inhibits our potential. And I am astonished and grateful for the amazing candor of your correspondence detailing your struggles and strategies to secure the bonds in your lives. It is particularly eye-opening to read about how complex and varied modern relationships have become in the age of cyber connections and social platforms. Freedom, it seems, is learning which of life’s rules are façades and how to survive them.   

And I hope I’m being as honest and unflinching with you as you seem to want me to be. A very kind email from Dianne in Florida puts it in words that encourage me. To wit: “…What I admire much about your writing is that you are fearless about ‘diving deep’ and touching a nerve. A lot of writers skim the surface. You give readers a lot of meaningful things to think about and feel. Writing that resonates with life is absolutely the highest form of the art.”    

A high bar, that. But I’ll try to clear it as I pick up the thread from last month’s Q&A to finish this Sullygram. Your feedback is challenging and goes to the heart of human relations. I probably have more questions of my own than answers, so I look forward to your takes.

I believe in a soulmate because I grew up in a family anchored in my folks’ example. But I think we are living in what you could call the Age of Composite Relationships.   

Some things are forever. Like the birds & the bees. Yeah, that ain’t goin’ nowhere. There aren’t that many people who believe in marrying someone sexually repulsive to them. (So far, so good, Sully). And I dare say, for a woman, serious attraction is decidedly more than bells and rockets before she falls asleep. Sexuality – defined as the aura of sex with all that implies about romance, worth, security, communication and managing a spouse – plays large. Same sexuality holds true for a man but to a lesser extent because the innate drive to pass along his genes makes physical consummations even more essential to him than they are to her. A man needs to “get there” and to have exclusivity from a woman in order to answer the natural imperative to pass along his genes; but a woman doesn’t need to be exclusive to one man except as a bargaining chip. This broad range between the psychological and the physical always gets an argument when you express it as Sexology 101, but no one who reaches critical mass in a bedroom would deny that women like sex as much as men; and if differences between sexuality and sex don’t illustrate differences in gender inclinations, then cultural testimonials and the commerce of fashion and cosmetics should nail it as a truism. Women pursue the psychological and emotional more than men do, and men wrap it all up in the physical more than women do.

Anyway, those were my assumptions 8,306 years ago when I was overshooting first base in the early innings of my life. But before I could gallop to second base, the dynamics began to change. Partly from what I saw, and “large partly” because I’m like fly paper (ugh) for attracting confidences from others, life has taught me that a lot – maybe most – relationships answer their unmet needs outside a declared relationship. Yeah, not exactly a news flash, but before you conclude that I must’ve skidded past second base and wound up clueless in left field, I’m not referring necessarily to passionate out-sourcing (“Mrs. Robinson, you’re trying to seduce me…aren’t you?”). It’s mobility combined with new ways to socialize that distinguishes this revamped sexuality from historical norms. Not talking fantasies here, rather people fulfilling needs with more than one mate in and out of formal marriage. 

Easier for a woman to get something out of the trappings of sex than for a man, if we’re being honest. Those more intense sexuality needs I mentioned above can be satisfied without physical contact, and emotions don’t leave tracks. But men initiate it as well, less artfully perhaps and primarily to lead to physical satisfaction.

So. Good or bad? The Golden Rule? Different strokes for different folks? Can you even compare emotional and psychological needs to physical needs? Culturally, we’ve sanctified the one and demonized the other. Is that the demise of romantic idealism?

Maybe composite spouses were inevitable. Multi-mates to handle different areas of relationships sounds more equitable and practical in the one-size-fits-all socialism of our times. “From each according to [their] abilities, to each according to [their] needs.” You go to who you’re most compatible with for whatever it is you want. Should be a good fit for the AI mates they tell us are coming soon to a bedroom near you. Still, for me, whatever the role and the cast of the comedy/drama that runs concurrent with my life, my dream production will always be the 2-person play called Soulmates. That’s what’s in my hope chest.

Thanks to Marshall Cook for the lead lengthy Sullygram quote in his latest edition of Extra Innings (#106 http://continuingstudies.wisc.edu/writing/extra-innings), his celebrated seasonal publication of all things interesting to book lovers. Retired now from a professorship at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,“Coach,” as Marsh is called, is regarded by many as an emeritus icon among bibliophiles. You can get on his free mailing list for Extra Innings by emailing him at: marshall.cook@wisc.edu

And the photo evidence below covers a couple of brands of magic I enjoyed last month: #1-8 Crow-Hassan’s secret bowers; #9-12 Roseville’s brand new SeaQuest aquatic adventure at Rosedale Mall where my lad is General Manager!

Thomas "Sully" Sullivan