"I have no solutions," Esther Perel says, extinguishing her cigarette in a Tel Aviv cafe. "I merely wanted to open a discussion."

She has alert, blue eyes and speaks fluent Hebrew with a soft French accent. She appears prepared to speak about anything, anytime, with anybody. Perel's book "Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic," has been resting on a sofa for only a moment when a woman picks it up, intrigued by the title. "Did you hear about this?" she asks her friend, and the two women become engrossed in a discussion on the subject.

Perel, a New-York based sex and family therapist, has drawn constant attention since she first began to examine eroticism. She explains her theory in frequent interviews, lectures, workshops and even parties. She has touched on a subject that occupies many people's minds: passion, and how to preserve it in a long-term relationship. Perel speaks about this freely and nonjudgmentally. She discusses betrayal, affairs, loss of libido, expectations and frustration without emotional baggage. Nothing shocks her.

	Advertisement

In "Mating in Captivity: Reconciling the Erotic and the Domestic" (HarperCollins, 2006), Perel maintains we now expect one individual to provide us with what was once supplied by an entire village: Stability, meaning and continuity. We expect our relationships to be not only stable and secure, but romantic and sexually and emotionally fulfilling. These are new expectations, Perel says. Is it any wonder that so many relationships bite the dust?

Equality or passion

According to "Mating in Captivity," the trend toward gender equality compromises passion. Intimacy and openness cancel the mystery vital to eroticism. Perel advises couples to create distance to nurture renewed excitement and passion. She urges them to abolish democracy in their bedrooms, and hone discrepancies in power between the sexes. Feminists believe Perel is attempting to turn back the clock. Perel believes she is merely voicing issues no one else is willing to mention.

"Betrayal and affairs are not always symptoms of a problematic relationship," she says. "People always say that if someone meets someone else, there must be a problem at home. But frequently, people who are doing quite well at home suddenly experience something outside. It frequently happens after a loss, the untimely death of a parent or a friend, an experience that makes one aware of one's mortality. The affair becomes a way to cling to life."

To what extent are you preoccupied by questions of morality?

"I do not have a lot of moral questions about this subject - I have existential questions. I have a client who developed breast cancer. She has a wonderful husband who accompanied her throughout the treatments. But she is no longer able to experience her femininity with him. So, for nine months, she fulfilled herself with someone who returned her passion and her sense of femininity, then told him good-bye and went home. Should I tell her this is wrong?

"Monogamy was never related to love. It was created to let us know where our offspring came from; it was a financial matter, to let us know who our children belonged to and who was entitled to inheritance. It was imposed on women and did not obligate men. Modern Western society transformed monogamy into a sacred cow, into choice rather than coercion, and something associated with love. Every couple has limits, even open couples. They should speak freely about these limits. Every couple lives with potential betrayal, and betrayal usually closely approaches the limits the couple sets for themselves. But, in most cases, the couple does not set its limits together, and each partner has his own private, internal negotiations. Many heterosexual couples are afraid to negotiate. But the limit is determined anyway, so it may be worth deciding together. Limits may sometimes change a few times through the course of a relationship."

Vital power differences

Perel, 48, was born and raised in Belgium to Holocaust survivors. When she was 17, she came to Israel for a few years. She lived in Ein Karem ("I still believe it is the most beautiful place I have ever been") and her parents still live, on and off, in Jerusalem.

In 1982, she went to Boston to complete her master's degree in psychology. But when the Lebanon war broke out and she began working at Harvard Medical Center, she decided not to return to Israel. She met her husband Jack there, and they now have two children, ages 11 and 13. They live in Soho, Manhattan.

She began investigating passion and sexuality by accident. Previously, her work had focused on intercultural differences and mixed marriages. "After the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair broke, a magazine editor asked me to write about Americans and sex. I wrote 11 versions of the article over a year. I began avidly reading about passion. Meanwhile, I saw what was going on in my clinical practice. I saw relationships that were not at all bad, but had no passion, and people who improved their relationships without improving their sex. I gradually understood there were different rules."

Perel says the modern relationship began taking shape in the late 19th century, through a series of changes: The shift from village to urban society left man lonely and alienated, and thus in need of contact to define himself; the development of the term "I"; changes in the term "intimacy," which came to express not only closeness but also meaning; and the romantic ideal that a relationship was an act of choice and love.

"Then, the Pill came and permitted women, for the first time, to experience sexuality without mortal risk," Perel says. "That was followed by the sexual revolution, which allowed us to experience premarital sexual relations and expect satisfaction. Then there was the matter of equality, which attempted to discount all the differences, mainly the differences in power."

And you believe that differences in power are vital to passion?

"They are vital to passion, but not within a social or civil framework, and also not within the home in general."

Then how is this made to include only sex?

"In play. I do not want the same relationship in the kitchen or the office as in bed. We never expected to integrate stability and security with passion and sexuality. Now, we want stability and financial support and children and respect, and we want our husband also to be our best friend and our confidante, and our lover. Our desire to have everything with one individual is new. And, when we divorce, we don't think that perhaps, it is worth investigating the model. We think we merely chose the wrong person, and that there is someone else who could provide us with everything."

Perel says there is no such thing as "safe sex." Safety and stability cancel passion. Wisdom involves knowing how to live in uncertainty with one's partner.

"Passion relies on a tolerable degree of uncertainty. At the beginning of a relationship, there is a great deal more passion, because there is much less certainty. Later, we are willing to trade playfulness and eroticism for certainty, which is actually, in the best case, an illusion. So, what have we accomplished?"

She quickly adds, "This does not come from a Buddhist approach, in my case. It comes from the Holocaust. I do not believe there is such a thing, security." Perel's parents lost their families in the war, and later met and established their own family. Her choice of research subject is directly related to this. "I grew up in a community of Holocaust survivors. There were two groups: Those who didn't die, and those who returned to life," she says. "Those who didn't die thought only of defense and security. The second group of survivors reconnected to life, nurtured playfulness and creativity. To my great fortune, my parents belonged to the second group, and that is another reason for their survival."

The Tantra spiritual school believes sexuality derives from intimacy and sharing. "It's a very nice model. Tantra also talks about fun, pleasure and joy. It deals with being present, and good sex means being present. In that regard, there is a similarity between both approaches. But in my opinion, Tantra leaves out the less pleasant elements of love. When you love, you are also angry. There is no dependence without anger, hatred, jealousy and revenge. Passion provides the space, language and opportunity to experience the complex elements of love. Because of that, the egalitarian model does not suit passion."

That doesn't sound very feminist.

"First-generation feminists really oppose this, but younger feminists completely understand me - particularly younger lesbians. I am not anti-intimacy. We need connection, but also eroticism. I watch people. When they finally find the security they are looking for, they still want to live their life again. You can live for 15 years without eroticism, and live well.

"Until, one day, something suddenly happens. You don't know where it came from, but when it hits you, it's like a storm. You can't stop it. I respect that need. It's not an expression of immaturity. I do not believe life is an exercise in coping with reality. Life is also an exercise in remaining connected with dreams. I do not only work with my clients on examining their lousy reality - but so that they will reexperience their dreams."