Recently I watched a movie called He's Just Not That Into You, based on a book written by two screen writers from the TV series Sex and the City. I was ignorant of the story's origins when watching it, but that knowledge makes sense based on what I know about that show and what the movie is about. I was pondering the prophetic perspicacity of C. S. Lewis' last published work before his death, a social critique called "We Have No Right To Happiness." Note: I'm going to discuss some of the plot points to the movie and article, so if you're not interested in finding out about either, save this for after you've seen the movie. Still there? Then read on.
Lewis begins his commentary relaying a story involving a comment that a neighboring socialite made. In relation to hearing that a man had recently divorced his wife to marry a woman who had divorced her husband, this socialite said, "Well, after all, they had a right to happiness." Lewis ponders the meaning, implications and etymology of this particular phrase in various insightful and prognosticating ways. He distinguishes the concept of a right to happiness with the famous sentiment from the US Constitution, the right to the "pursuit of happiness." Without restating the entire article, which I highly recommend you peruse, the gist of what he says amounts to this: that sexual happiness (the happiness referred to by the socialite and by the husband when defending his behavior, whether they realize it or not) is transitory, based upon emotion and whim; that the pursuit of sexual expression has achieved a hitherto unparalleled position of condonement for any pernicious or ungracious behavior; and that women will always be at a disadvantage in this dynamic since they lose their sexual appeal as they age whereas men rely less on looks and beauty to attract women.
Any of you who have seen the movie I referenced at the beginning will immediately recognize the connection with Lewis' essay. For the plot of the movie is about a group of people, women and men, who are all in relationships or trying to get in relationship with someone, usually someone else from that group. Of particular interest is the subplot involving Scarlett Johansson's character and Bradley Cooper's character. Cooper is married to Jennifer Connelly in the movie, though we don't discover this for a while. The two meet in a store and converse for a while, obviously attracted to each other. Cooper's character then deflects Johansson by explaining that he's married. Instead of walking away and breaking all contact, he gives her a card and she pursues him, ultimately succeeding in a tryst. When he confesses this to his wife, she attempts to salvage the marriage, but then ultimately divorces him when she finds out that he's been lying about smoking.
(Side note: My cynical outlook on popular culture found it sad and instructive that a woman would forgive and overlook adultery, but overreact and divorce her spouse over a secret smoking habit. True, her character's father died of lung cancer, so there's some psychological explanation for it, but it bespoke of the culture's lassez faire attitude toward sexual promiscuity, which Lewis predicted 50 years ago, juxtaposed with the rabid rejection of cigarettes that pervades the culture. However, I can understand that for some people, it's not the act itself that they cannot condone, but the lying and prevarication that raises their hackles. Cooper was honest and forthright (mostly) about the affair, but consistently lied about smoking.)
While watching the movie, I remember thinking, "You're on a slippery slope, buddy," as Cooper flirted with Johansson and justified spending time with her, "as friends." Without alluding to When Harry Met Sally let me posit that men and women cannot be friends by themselves. That is, they can be friendly, they can spend time with each other as long as other people are around. But isolate them and temptation rears its head. Regardless, the parallels with Lewis' couple was striking to me, to see this man dabble with another woman simply because he perceived a lack in his marriage somewhere. Now, it is instructive that later in the movie we find out that the married couple had stopped having sex. The implicit message here is that men are sexual animals and that women need to continue to satisfy them sexually in order to keep them from philandering. A standup comic told a story (true or not, who knows) about how his wife stopped sleeping with him and how a gorgeous woman came up and complimented him after a show. One thing led to another, and he summarized it by saying, "Now, I'm a good dog, but you have to pet me once in a while in order to keep me on the porch!"
Well, if womens' only hold on men is their sexual appeal, then as Lewis says they will always lose to younger women since they lose their beauty as they age. Men don't have a lot of beauty to begin with and thus rely less on it to entice women, which prevents them from suffering a disadvantage as natural events take their course. A feminist might take this opportunity to rail against the base nature of males. A moralist might choose to criticize women for obsessing over their looks and attractiveness. I think that there is enough blame to spread around to both sides.
The fundamental issue at stake here is the nature of relationships between males and females. This is what the movie is about, and what the articles attempts to discern. As Lewis points out, more and more the prevailing attitude toward romance is simply to satisfy one's appetites and satiate one's lusts. And he counters this mentality bluntly:
"When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also—I must put it crudely—good people; controlled, loyal, fairminded, mutually adaptable people."
And here is the fundamental point. When people enter into relationships for the purpose of satisfying their own needs and desires, the relationship is doomed. DOOMED. There is no way that another person can satisfy the need to be loved, the longing on the hearts of people for that unconditional, unstinting, unjudging, unwavering, unaltering, implacable affection and acceptance that every human being yearns for, if they examined their hearts and minds deeply enough. They need healing and restoration from the wounds and weariness of this world.
The problem with the characters in the film, with the two people in Lewis' essay, and with the mentality that is preached to all consumers of modern culture, is that they approach the relationship with selfish desires. They confuse attraction and affection with love. Attraction and affection are self-focused. They answer the question, "What can you do for me?" That is the question most people enter into relationships to answer. But this is negated before the relationship even begins! Because if both people are asking that of the other, then neither is able to fulfill that desire within themselves! It's like two people dying of thirst meeting in the desert. They see the other and exclaim, "You must have water for me! Please, for pity's sake, give me some water!" Both are in the exact same situation. But neither has what the other needs, so how can they attain it? Impossible. You cannot give what you do not have.
I have noticed a stunning flaw in most portrayals of relationships in mainstream culture, one in fact present in the movie. This movie ends, as most movies do, with several of the characters being united or reunited in loving, passionate relationships, though not the married couple. The married couple is the only couple that breaks apart, and even the illicit relationship between Cooper and Johansson is sundered. But the rest of them get together and we see their affectionate lives together. However, what is to prevent them from suffering the same fate as Connelly and Cooper? How will they avoid that gradual diminution of passion and mystery that undergirded their initial attraction? We see Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston's characters reunited and pledge to marry; what steps will they take to avoid the same failure? Because there hasn't been any reevaluation of what constitutes a strong and enduring relationship. Affleck's character was steadfastly against marriage, leading to his estrangement with Aniston. Aniston then sees the way husbands take for granted their wives' service and dedication, contrasted with Affleck's caring and consideration for her. In predictable Hollywood fashion, she renounces her determination to get married and reconciles with Affleck, who then proposes marriage to her. So they each learn to give in to the other. And this is the closest thing to love that we ever see in the film, and the single sliver of hope that one relationship will endure the storms and shoals of time. But they never verbalize it, they never express it in such a way that each can keep this in mind while they deal with the other's quirks and qualms. Their affection for each other is at its zenith, and in such throes do they make sacrifices. But will they be so humble, forgiving, and selfless in a year or five or ten?
There is almost a coldbloodedness to love, an icy determination to cleave to your spouse no matter what they do. The marriage pact is a symbol of this, a guiderail that keeps your eyes from wandering too far. Even when you experience resentment or a complete lack of affection for your mate, the vows taken before God and man (especially God) can hold you to your course. Anyone can promise the world while their blood is boiling in passion; to walk back into a room where your spouse and you just had a yelling match and you feel you were in the right but you still apologize and ask for forgiveness anyway takes a control of the will that most people don't cultivate or even understand. That is why Lewis says that successful marriages take "good people" to work. Because selfish people will only love you as long as they get what they want from you. And not a moment longer.
Obviously the moral of this story is that the more selfless you are the stronger your marriage will be, and the more you surrender your will to the Lord, the more you will be fulfilled by Him and can love and interact with your mate from the overflow of your heart, which is filled with the love of God. I don't expect to see that on any screen anytime soon. I hold out hope, though.
