Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvior, these are two household names in France and the world alike. One is a brilliantly talented philosopher, playwright, theorist and prolific writer. Another is a pioneering feminist, who has written books such as The Second Sex which is hailed as the Bible of women and is of monumental significance in the world history.

Both of them are of peculiar personalities.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize but refused to accept it, declaring that the worldly fame is not in line with his pursuit for freedom. He showed plainly his contempt against religion and social conventions, not caring the abounding misunderstandings or even despises from his contemporaries. When it comes to personal image, he could never be reckoned as a handsome man, no matter what standard we might adopt, yet his dazzling genius and characteristic style had made him a man of irresistible charm nonetheless.

She was the envy of women and the honey of men, a favorite of fate, a woman of both outshining beauty and talent. Unlike ordinary women, she had known what she wanted at a very early age, i.e. being a writer. With her extraordinary genius and keen perception, she pushed her way through the jungle of men, and secured a place in the World Literature. She was independent, sophisticated and resourceful, accomplishing what seemed impossible for a woman at that time.

Their romantic encounter and eventual union took place in 1929, a wonderful summer in Paris. They were both young at the time, bubbling with dream for literature. They worked together and exchanged their respective thoughts and ideals, talking out their heart to each other. He was overwhelmed by her beauty, and she by his wit. They soon fell in love, and thus starting the long journey of love which had exceeded half a century.

He was a typical womanizer. Throughout his life, he had been chasing women one after another. His enthusiasm for women, beautiful women especially, had never ceased. He once professed, “The temptation from women constitutes the sole meaning of my existence.” However, in spite of all these love affairs, of all the women in this world, on one could take the place of her. He declared earnestly and continually that he and she were inseparable. She was the partner of his soul. No one in this world could be ever closer to him, both physically and spiritually. Their love had endured more than half a century, remaining fresh and solid even at the time of his death. At his bedside, holding her with a frail hand, he uttered his last word “I love you, my dear beaver”, the nickname of hers. It is not uncommon for one to say “I love you”. For most of us, when we are young and are passionate in love, we must have said these three words for more than once. However, it is not an easy task for one to keep saying “I love you” to one single person for a lifetime. But he did. Though they loved each other heart and soul, however, to the world, what was incomprehensible was that neither of them was willing to seek for the “holy commitment”—marriage. Both of them remained unmarried all their lives.

They were both fanatic pursuers of freedom. Marriage, for them, was a chain, which would inevitably restrict their respective freedom. They did not want to be bound, so they made an agreement. At first the duration of the agreement was merely two years. However, they had adhered to it for the rest of their lifetime. The agreement went on as this—“both of them could not lie or hold anything back from each other. They had the right to experience other love affairs but should be honest to the other” The agreement was first suggested by Sartre, and was accepted by Beauvior readily. They had carried out their promise from the beginning to the end. Both of them had lovers. For Sartre, the number was dozens. For Beauvior, it might be a little less. However, these were things which they did not care, at least not so seriously. The core of their love was not loyalty as between the common lovers. Loyalty, for them, was almost impossible. Both of them were quite aware of this. They knew it was unrealistic for themselves to remain loyal to each other and also unnecessary to require the other to keep it. Compared with loyalty, honesty was much easier to guarantee. Thus, they chose to be disloyal while frank to each other. And this proved to be workable.

Sometimes we might reckon that this kind of love is unthinkable and unrealistic. However, for them, perhaps, it was the best way. We can not possibly imagine it or even perform it, because we are not great minds as them.

Their love is extraordinary not just because of its length or depth. More importantly, as far as I’m concerned, is that it offers us a new perspective in dealing with love and marriage. Marriage is not necessarily a guarantee to love. A marriage certificate does not secure happiness or enduring love. After all, it can be changed into a divorce certificate any time.

Marriage is just a form, not the ultimate end.