Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 7, 2011
Hetero That's Not What I'm Saying, Ross
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Savage makes a big deal out of how “unnatural” monogamy is for human beings (complete with references to the recent book “Sex at Dawn” and other arguments in that vein), and as I’ve said before I completely agree with him. The ideal of monogamy is a fragile achievement of civilized life, not something that’s written in our glands and genes. But Savage doesn’t have the courage of his convictions: He wants to use evidence from human pre-history to argue against the plausibility and practicality of the monogamous ideal, but he would never dream of actually arguing for a return to the “natural” state of human sexual relations, with all that it entails in terms of polygamy, sexual violence and the subjugation of women.
I'm not arguing against the "monogamous ideal," per se, or civilization. I'm a big fan of civilization; natural states are often overrated. And I'm certainly not in favor of a return to the kind of biblical family values that Ross cites (polygamy, sexual violence, the subjugation of women, etc.). I'm also not arguing—nor have I ever argued—that everyone, everywhere would be happier or better off in non-monogamous relationships. (Although it would be nice if the monogamists/monogamusts could bring themselves to acknowledge that monogamish relationships work just fine for lots of people.) All I'm arguing for is a little realism, the kind of case-by-case accommodations that can salvage a marriage (permission to see a pro-dom, for instance), and some recognition of human frailty and fallibility.
Monogamy isn't natural, as Ross concedes, and monogamy has its advantages, as I've long conceded. (And it's a point I'm quoted conceding in the NYT magazine piece we're arguing about.) Monogamy is both plausible (monogamy happens) and practical (it's serves us well on the disease and paternity fronts). But as divorce court reporters and Us Magazine staffers document week after depressing week, many people fall short in their efforts to honor the monogamous ideal. Because monogamy is hard, because it's a struggle, because it's not natural. And I think we could save many marriages—particularly monogamous marriages that have been touched by infidelity—if we encouraged people to hold these two not-so-contradictory thoughts in their heads at once: the importance of monogamy (for many) and the difficulties of monogamy (for most). If someone makes a monogamous commitment and fucks up, I believe the wronged party is likelier to forgive the betrayal if the wronged party understands that monogamy is hard, that screwing someone else doesn't mean a person is no longer in love with his or her spouse, and if the cheated were encouraged to give cheaters some credit for time served.
Back to Ross:
Like any sane person, he recognizes the benefits of civilization’s restraint of sexual desire (and particularly male sexual desire); he just thinks every marriage should be a miniature civilization unto itself, constraining eros in a web of rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question.
It's always nice to see my sanity affirmed. But the nightmare scenario Ross fears is upon us: married couples are free to make up their own rules about eros and everything else. We can make all the assumptions we like about other people's marriages—they're sexually exclusive, they're about child rearing, "God is in the mix"—but other married couples aren't bound or constrained by our assumptions. They're free to do what, and who, they want.
1
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
-Upton Sinclair
-Upton Sinclair
2
Just what I want: Ross fucking Douchehat peering over my shoulder to sanction whatever arrangements Mr. emmas bee & I care to make about anything.
4
2) … On a related note, I’m struck by how the only players in this story are a) the adults (in the magazine story as printed it’s really only the adults in the marriage, but even in Oppenheimer’s comments here he only looks at e.g. the mistress, her boyfriend, or other adult parties who might be affected emotionally) and b) the children within the marriage. Have we really forgotten that sex still makes babies? There will be children of affairs, too, and so framing (heterosexual) adultery as a stay-together-for-the-kids plan strikes me as a great way to enhance the inherent inequality between children of the marriage and those outside it. Out-of-wedlock children, in this worldview, become unfortunate side effects of the sexual license designed to protect the marital children.
My parents got together about a year before I was born. My dad tells me he was planning on moving back to California and maybe getting together with an ex-girlfriend when he found out I was coming along.
He never told me this with resentment or negativity, just the fact of his life at that time. My parents stayed together for 17 years after this event. I got a little brother when I was 4 and a little sister when I was 6.
Except my little sister wasn't my dad's. My mom and dad had other people in their lives practically my entire life. Everyone knows my sister's parentage, but if you ask anyone in my family if my sister is my dad's, there's no question the answer is 'yes'.
During some nasty times that resulted in my mom needing to be removed from our home, the State of CA tried to take my sister away from us because she wasn't related to my dad by blood. Ever seen a rampaging bull?
I use this story a lot in my defenses of being poly because it seems to take the worst-case scenario of the "Monogamy at all costs" people and shows how narrow-minded they really are.
People adapt to the circumstances of their lives. My sister has a relationship with her siblings on her dad's side too, and it's as normal as any kind of mixed marriage situation.
Adults in relationships are people, not nannies that should drop everything for the supposed 'good of the children'. I'm very thankful I was raised with an alternative relationship structure and can see the good and bad to it all.
More...
My parents got together about a year before I was born. My dad tells me he was planning on moving back to California and maybe getting together with an ex-girlfriend when he found out I was coming along.
He never told me this with resentment or negativity, just the fact of his life at that time. My parents stayed together for 17 years after this event. I got a little brother when I was 4 and a little sister when I was 6.
Except my little sister wasn't my dad's. My mom and dad had other people in their lives practically my entire life. Everyone knows my sister's parentage, but if you ask anyone in my family if my sister is my dad's, there's no question the answer is 'yes'.
During some nasty times that resulted in my mom needing to be removed from our home, the State of CA tried to take my sister away from us because she wasn't related to my dad by blood. Ever seen a rampaging bull?
I use this story a lot in my defenses of being poly because it seems to take the worst-case scenario of the "Monogamy at all costs" people and shows how narrow-minded they really are.
People adapt to the circumstances of their lives. My sister has a relationship with her siblings on her dad's side too, and it's as normal as any kind of mixed marriage situation.
Adults in relationships are people, not nannies that should drop everything for the supposed 'good of the children'. I'm very thankful I was raised with an alternative relationship structure and can see the good and bad to it all.
5
Okay, Dan, but what about the conservative argument that common limits & restrictions & shaming techniques make it easier for ordinary people to come close to the social ideal of monogamy?
According to the NYT magazine piece, you've had nine incidents of extramarital sex in all your years together. That's not very much. But maybe you and Terry are particularly suited to be monogamish.
In the course of 18 months, my husband (of fifteen happy years) has escalated from thinking an occasional visit to an escort would blow his mind, to now embracing a new girlfriend in his life. Is it possible that if I had said no to the escort, he might have snuck out to do that, but would never have considered getting a girlfriend? Yes. It's also possible that he would have dumped my ass, or that he would have gotten a secret girlfriend... we'll never know. But maybe you should acknowledge that maintaining social constraints might help fallible people keep their expectations for outside sex to a reasonable level...
According to the NYT magazine piece, you've had nine incidents of extramarital sex in all your years together. That's not very much. But maybe you and Terry are particularly suited to be monogamish.
In the course of 18 months, my husband (of fifteen happy years) has escalated from thinking an occasional visit to an escort would blow his mind, to now embracing a new girlfriend in his life. Is it possible that if I had said no to the escort, he might have snuck out to do that, but would never have considered getting a girlfriend? Yes. It's also possible that he would have dumped my ass, or that he would have gotten a secret girlfriend... we'll never know. But maybe you should acknowledge that maintaining social constraints might help fallible people keep their expectations for outside sex to a reasonable level...
6
I get so frustrated when, over and over, Dan's thoughts on this get misrepresented, twisted, and lied about. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around this: Dan is NOT anti-monogamy. Dan is FOR marriage. But most of all, Dan is a realist. And he thinks that we all need to be a bit more honest about the difficulties we all deal with where sexuality is concerned.
Also, those of you who have not tried being monogamish need to just STFU. My husband and I are monogamish and it works just fine for us, thank you very much. We are closer than ever, we have sex WAY more than we used to, and we have the most intimate, deep conversations that I've ever had with anyone in my 46 years of life.
Also, those of you who have not tried being monogamish need to just STFU. My husband and I are monogamish and it works just fine for us, thank you very much. We are closer than ever, we have sex WAY more than we used to, and we have the most intimate, deep conversations that I've ever had with anyone in my 46 years of life.
7
There is no way that you can say monogamy is not natural. Monogamy is as natural as anything on earth, and with all the species of earth, it should be clear that monogamy is natural for some, as some species do practice lifelong monogamy. Some humans do practice lifelong monogamy, and some do not.
From a philosophical point of view, I believe anything that happens on earth is natural, as we are all products of nature and our creations are the result of nature. Nature is a very chaotic and complex and beautiful thing. It is not for us to decide what is/ is not natural.
Saying monogamy isn't natural is like saying homosexuality isn't natural. How can you say that something that has existed since the dawn of mankind isn't natural? There are surely people that are monogamous. There are certainly people that are poly-amorous.
I think it has, at some point in your life, it has bothered you that people have said homosexuality is not natural. I hope that you remember how that felt, and then apply it to the parallels that exist between how homosexuals have been treated historically with people saying it was an abomination and unnatural and now here you are saying that monogamy is unnatural.
I just think you're hurting people’s (not mine) feelings unnecessarily, and what good does that serve?
Have you considered that you're projecting some past mistreatment of homosexuality as an attack on monogamy?
I hope I haven’t totally missed your point here, but if I have please feel free to correct me. It just seems silly to say monogamy is not natural. I’ve pulled it off, lol, pulling it off was actually one of the tactics that made monogamy more easily attainable. LOL!
From a philosophical point of view, I believe anything that happens on earth is natural, as we are all products of nature and our creations are the result of nature. Nature is a very chaotic and complex and beautiful thing. It is not for us to decide what is/ is not natural.
Saying monogamy isn't natural is like saying homosexuality isn't natural. How can you say that something that has existed since the dawn of mankind isn't natural? There are surely people that are monogamous. There are certainly people that are poly-amorous.
I think it has, at some point in your life, it has bothered you that people have said homosexuality is not natural. I hope that you remember how that felt, and then apply it to the parallels that exist between how homosexuals have been treated historically with people saying it was an abomination and unnatural and now here you are saying that monogamy is unnatural.
I just think you're hurting people’s (not mine) feelings unnecessarily, and what good does that serve?
Have you considered that you're projecting some past mistreatment of homosexuality as an attack on monogamy?
I hope I haven’t totally missed your point here, but if I have please feel free to correct me. It just seems silly to say monogamy is not natural. I’ve pulled it off, lol, pulling it off was actually one of the tactics that made monogamy more easily attainable. LOL!
8
@5 How is promoting a prohibition to coerce the "weak" into following a mode of behavior ever benefited society?
It doesn't sound like you're particularly happy with the way your guy's behavior suddenly changed, but your circumstances shouldn't make society judge my lifestyle negatively.
It doesn't sound like you're particularly happy with the way your guy's behavior suddenly changed, but your circumstances shouldn't make society judge my lifestyle negatively.
9
A few minor grammar problems:
- Missing a closing parenthesis after "(And that's a point...".
- plausible has only one 'i'. "plausibile" would be a good candidate for a neologism, though!
- "disease- and paternity-fronts" should not be hyphenated, as these are phrases rather than compound words.
It's interesting that Mr. Douthat casts the issue as as "Dan Savage vs. monogamy," though. It's more "Dan Savage vs. poor communication and unrealistic expectations", but I suppose that doesn't work too well when you're trying to manufacture controversy.
- Missing a closing parenthesis after "(And that's a point...".
- plausible has only one 'i'. "plausibile" would be a good candidate for a neologism, though!
- "disease- and paternity-fronts" should not be hyphenated, as these are phrases rather than compound words.
It's interesting that Mr. Douthat casts the issue as as "Dan Savage vs. monogamy," though. It's more "Dan Savage vs. poor communication and unrealistic expectations", but I suppose that doesn't work too well when you're trying to manufacture controversy.
10
If more people listened to Dan and his exceedingly PRACTICAL advice, I wager more marriages would be saved than by following the narrow and divisive advice of many other (most notably Christian) psychologists, counselors, advice columnists, etc. When faced with infidelity I unfortunately turned to sources I was familiar with and even though the advice to kick my husband out when presented with the ultimatum to choose struck me as being cold and cruel to a man already confused and hurting, I did it anyway, thinking it was my only option. Luckily, we pulled through, and are better for it- but for a society that's supposedly so pro-marriage, it sure is hell-bent on dumping the institution once one of the parties has strayed. I was gob-smacked by how many people thought I should walk away and not fight for my marriage, how many questioned how could take him back, let alone would want to. The answer boils down to a combination of a commitment to love and accept each other and asking whether you're better off with or without this person.
11
@8 "How is promoting a prohibition to coerce the "weak" into following a mode of behavior ever benefited society?"
So shaming people for abandoning their kids or beating their partners is wrong, because it coerces weak people into following a particular mode of behavior?
So shaming people for abandoning their kids or beating their partners is wrong, because it coerces weak people into following a particular mode of behavior?
12
I agree with the implications of Dan's assertion that monogamy is unnatural - it can be hard and from a realist perspective it shouldn't be seen as the ideal for everyone. However, I'd argue that monogamy and nonmogamy are both natural, but are just competing impulses. I think their are evolutionary advantages to exclusively pair bond as well as seek out multiple partners. Its just that the balance between these two impulses varies greatly between individuals, so there is not a single ideal for all people.
13
Side note: The title of this post seemed so familiar, and I think it's because I don't think I've seen Roos Douthat's in the last year except on a blog post by someone correcting the fact that he has ignorantly (and seemingly deliberately) misrepresented their point of view in a blog post or column. I used to think of him as a conservative asshole with whom I disagree who at least didn't play so fast and loose with the facts like so many of his ideological compatriots. I wonder what's changed.
14
At least Douchehat is off his obsession with the sex lives of young unmarried females for a week. At least once a month he runs a creepy column(plus multiple blog posts) about how women are RUINED FOREVER by pre-marital sex. Weirder than MDowd's French obsession or Friedman's taxi cab research.
15
@9: Also, it should presumably be "the kind of case-by-case accommodations that can salvage a marriage[...]"
16
Being able to hold "two not-so-contradictory thoughts in [our] heads at once" would be a lovely step in the right direction for, gosh, just about everyone I know.
18
@7 How did you find this post? You've obviously never read anything Dan's written (including this post, now that I think about it) if you say blithely that monogamy has existed since the dawn of time, or that Dan thinks no people are monogamous. Monogamy has existed only for 10% of humans' time on Earth, tops, and Dan has said many times that monogamy works for some people.
19
@11 Does it? Coerce people into following a particular mode of behavior, I mean. Do you think people who are predisposed to abandon their children, beat their partners, or stray by and large stop themselves from doing those things out of shame? Are there untold numbers of would-be wife-beaters who didn't follow that path because society looks down on it? I wonder if there's a psychological study regarding societal shaming and the inhibition of certain behaviors. My personal conjecture is that if societal shaming doesn't stop you from being gay, it won't stop you from wanting/pursuing more than one partner, dumping your kids if it suits you, or from being a violent asshole.
20
@11 I think some parents should abandon their children, but that's just projection.
And I think it's amusing you bring in the partner abuse argument seeing as for so long it was the monogamists telling women they had to grin and bear it for the good of society.
It wasn't until society acknowledged that women has agency too that this abuse was even seen as that much of a negative. So our "loosening" social mores benefited half of society in this instance, but you want us to stop at the point where two people can come to an agreement about what works for them regardless of the "greater societal good".
And I think it's amusing you bring in the partner abuse argument seeing as for so long it was the monogamists telling women they had to grin and bear it for the good of society.
It wasn't until society acknowledged that women has agency too that this abuse was even seen as that much of a negative. So our "loosening" social mores benefited half of society in this instance, but you want us to stop at the point where two people can come to an agreement about what works for them regardless of the "greater societal good".
21
And why does Ross use the phrase:
"constraining eros in a web of rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question."
When he could have said:
"liberating eros by recognizing and crafting rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question."
Ah, the power of word selection: A "web" is a bad thing, I guess. But not if the couple communicates well and likes and agrees to webs.
Why should two people be miserable trying to follow societal pressures when they can mutually agree otherwise, without hurting anyone else?
"constraining eros in a web of rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question."
When he could have said:
"liberating eros by recognizing and crafting rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question."
Ah, the power of word selection: A "web" is a bad thing, I guess. But not if the couple communicates well and likes and agrees to webs.
Why should two people be miserable trying to follow societal pressures when they can mutually agree otherwise, without hurting anyone else?
22
"Like any sane person, he recognizes the benefits of civilization’s restraint of sexual desire (and particularly male sexual desire)"
I love when conservatives talk about marriage w/o any cultural and historical perspective and only from their narrow, Westernized, personal paradigm. Marriage used to restrain male sexual desire is a very new and very localized invention.
I love when conservatives talk about marriage w/o any cultural and historical perspective and only from their narrow, Westernized, personal paradigm. Marriage used to restrain male sexual desire is a very new and very localized invention.
23
@ 19, "Do you think people who are predisposed to abandon their children, beat their partners, or stray by and large stop themselves from doing those things out of shame?"
Some people sure as hell do. Or at least fear of the consequences.
Some people sure as hell do. Or at least fear of the consequences.
24
"All I'm arguing for is a little realism, the kind of case-by-case accommodations that can savage a marriage"
Dan, I think you mean "salvage" here, not "savage."
Dan, I think you mean "salvage" here, not "savage."
25
Why should two people be miserable trying to follow societal pressures when they can mutually agree otherwise, without hurting anyone else?
That, Jaymz, is the conservative v. liberal question of the century.
My guesses:
1. God says so.
2. The children!
3. That's just unnatural.
4. Because everyone else does it.
5. Think of the CHILDREN!
26
"Like any sane person, he recognizes the benefits of civilization’s restraint of sexual desire (and particularly male sexual desire)"
I love when conservatives talk about marriage w/o any cultural and historical perspective and only from their narrow, Westernized, personal paradigm.
Marriage used to restrain male sexual desire is a very new and very localized invention.
I love when conservatives talk about marriage w/o any cultural and historical perspective and only from their narrow, Westernized, personal paradigm.
Marriage used to restrain male sexual desire is a very new and very localized invention.
27
@23 Yeah, but societal shaming and fear of consequences are two entirely different motivators for behavior.
28
@19/20 - lots of people behave badly in private (screaming or belittling their children or spouse), and shape up in public. They do so because they don't want to face public shame.
@20 - sure, come to whatever agreement you adults want. But if someone unilaterally changes the agreement, after 15 years and two kids -- there ought to be some social understanding that that's not cool.
@20 - sure, come to whatever agreement you adults want. But if someone unilaterally changes the agreement, after 15 years and two kids -- there ought to be some social understanding that that's not cool.
29
@27 "entirely different"? Isn't societal shaming one possible consequence that someone might fear?
30
i'm kinda wondering if Dan's or anyone's arguments perhaps can be made without referring to how "natural" a behavior may or may not be? because often the logic doesn't stand up to tests. rape is natural, but do we EVER excuse that? no. lying is natural, but Dan is calling for honest relationships. war is natural...
i dunno, if we could just break free of inconsistently using Nature to excuse our actions, maybe the arguments would become stronger. we should instead base arguments on a totally unnatural, modern, human ideal morality. or something.
ps
animals cheat all the time, and they lie about it. or hide it. or punish each other when they find out. that's natural too!
i dunno, if we could just break free of inconsistently using Nature to excuse our actions, maybe the arguments would become stronger. we should instead base arguments on a totally unnatural, modern, human ideal morality. or something.
ps
animals cheat all the time, and they lie about it. or hide it. or punish each other when they find out. that's natural too!
31
@30 I agree with onion about the use of the word "natural." I'd also include the word "normal" as well. Both words have been given too much significance. Natural/normal have the default connotation of being "right" with unnatural/abnormal as being inherently "wrong."
32
@18
You seem angry. I hope that whatever is bothering you will be alleviated soon and that you have some fun.
Life is too short to be so negative. Loosen up and live a little.
Regards, Joe
You seem angry. I hope that whatever is bothering you will be alleviated soon and that you have some fun.
Life is too short to be so negative. Loosen up and live a little.
Regards, Joe
33
I have a question for the community:
I am in a monogamous relationship of two years. Thus far I have not had any great temptation to cheat, but I do find monogamy difficult, and exert considerable effort in order to maintain it.
If my boyfriend were to cheat on me, I think I would be able to forgive him (obviously depending on the circumstances). But the thing that would bother me most is that he failed where I succeeded: he cheated and I refrained.
If something like that were to go down, I would want to demand permission to cheat similarly at some point in the future. Not to get revenge upon him, but to have a desired outside sexual experience just as he had. I would like to have license, the next time I met someone who tested my resolve, to just go ahead.
Would that be fair, or would it be vindictive?
I am in a monogamous relationship of two years. Thus far I have not had any great temptation to cheat, but I do find monogamy difficult, and exert considerable effort in order to maintain it.
If my boyfriend were to cheat on me, I think I would be able to forgive him (obviously depending on the circumstances). But the thing that would bother me most is that he failed where I succeeded: he cheated and I refrained.
If something like that were to go down, I would want to demand permission to cheat similarly at some point in the future. Not to get revenge upon him, but to have a desired outside sexual experience just as he had. I would like to have license, the next time I met someone who tested my resolve, to just go ahead.
Would that be fair, or would it be vindictive?
34
Ugh, *sigh*, throwing around the term "natural" in regards to any human behavior is the mark of the intellectual cripple. The simple fact is, we know very little about how non-civilized humans behaved in the past. There is information about how non-civilized humans behaved when they were encountered by civilization, and that's it. Everything we know about human culture comes from civilized people, because they were the ones who recorded it.
It's also disingenuous to argue the point anyway: Why should anyone turn to the "it's natural" argument, anyway? A lot of our behavior is culturally-conditioned, but so what? That gives us our best frame of reference. Those who turn to the "natural" argument do so out of an attempt to justify a position that they can't back up w/ their culture truly values, or they want to blame things on "human nature" instead of admitting that that is simply what their culture likes.
It's also disingenuous to argue the point anyway: Why should anyone turn to the "it's natural" argument, anyway? A lot of our behavior is culturally-conditioned, but so what? That gives us our best frame of reference. Those who turn to the "natural" argument do so out of an attempt to justify a position that they can't back up w/ their culture truly values, or they want to blame things on "human nature" instead of admitting that that is simply what their culture likes.
35
@7, or maybe others: For a lot of people, especially straight people, monogamy is synonymous with marriage. Given the involvement of local government in the issuance of the required licenses, and the filing and certification requirements after a wedding, and the traditional printed notices, costumes, accessories, traditions, social customs, music and foods involved, which part of "artifice" escapes you?
I'm not against it, by any means, having been married, and monogamous for mumblety-mumble years now, but I'd be the last to claim it was "natural." On the other hand, it's certainly comfortable. Most of the time.
I'm not against it, by any means, having been married, and monogamous for mumblety-mumble years now, but I'd be the last to claim it was "natural." On the other hand, it's certainly comfortable. Most of the time.
36
@35
Marriage, I would argue is not a thing that existed in nature on its own. I don't think of marriage when I think of monogamy... I guess I never considered that the two are linked in some people's minds.
To answer your question, no part of "artifice" escapes me. I like to think I am more optimistic than simply seeing things as a way to trick people. Sometimes they're just fun. But hey, I work in family law. So you likely won't see me getting married anytime soon. lol.
Marriage, I would argue is not a thing that existed in nature on its own. I don't think of marriage when I think of monogamy... I guess I never considered that the two are linked in some people's minds.
To answer your question, no part of "artifice" escapes me. I like to think I am more optimistic than simply seeing things as a way to trick people. Sometimes they're just fun. But hey, I work in family law. So you likely won't see me getting married anytime soon. lol.
37
There's nothing new with conservatives twisting people's words around to make them look bad.I just wish people other than Jon Stewart would point this out!!! Fox news does it to the liberal medis all the time...
I would like to also point out that a lot of evolutionary psychology is guesswork. These are not hard facts. We were not there, so saying that human beings were definitely not monogamous until fairly recently is wrong. You just don't know and I don't think that it helps Dan's case when he is constantly touting "Sex at Dawn." This is guesswork, no matter what they claim. I would also like to point out, even if they are kind of right, we have evolved since then. I agree with parts of previous posters that using the words 'natural' and 'normal' just make it easier for people like this asshat to twist his words aound.
Note: I think couples (or triples, quadruples, whatever) should do what works for them. It's just insulting to be bombarded with how 'unnatural' I'm being for prefering monogamy.
I would like to also point out that a lot of evolutionary psychology is guesswork. These are not hard facts. We were not there, so saying that human beings were definitely not monogamous until fairly recently is wrong. You just don't know and I don't think that it helps Dan's case when he is constantly touting "Sex at Dawn." This is guesswork, no matter what they claim. I would also like to point out, even if they are kind of right, we have evolved since then. I agree with parts of previous posters that using the words 'natural' and 'normal' just make it easier for people like this asshat to twist his words aound.
Note: I think couples (or triples, quadruples, whatever) should do what works for them. It's just insulting to be bombarded with how 'unnatural' I'm being for prefering monogamy.
39
@28 "sure, come to whatever agreement you adults want. But if someone unilaterally changes the agreement, after 15 years and two kids -- there ought to be some social understanding that that's not cool."
Ahh, but that is pretty frowned upon in all the circles I frequent. Including the Savage Love archives- DTMA?
It seems like a bad situation you've been thrust into, and I'm sorry your husband used the idea of non-monogamy to upset your life.
This situation still doesn't justify the wants of conservatives to prohibit the practice to those of us who it works for. If anything, this reminds me of all the straight people who married a gay man or lesbian when it was society's practice to frown on "that lifestyle".
If people can be honest about their non-monogamy tendencies without being considered a social pariah, it might make these kinds of situations more infrequent.
As it is, I can come out as bi to everyone in my life, but the minute I talk about dating more than one person, I might as well have more than one head.
Ahh, but that is pretty frowned upon in all the circles I frequent. Including the Savage Love archives- DTMA?
It seems like a bad situation you've been thrust into, and I'm sorry your husband used the idea of non-monogamy to upset your life.
This situation still doesn't justify the wants of conservatives to prohibit the practice to those of us who it works for. If anything, this reminds me of all the straight people who married a gay man or lesbian when it was society's practice to frown on "that lifestyle".
If people can be honest about their non-monogamy tendencies without being considered a social pariah, it might make these kinds of situations more infrequent.
As it is, I can come out as bi to everyone in my life, but the minute I talk about dating more than one person, I might as well have more than one head.
40
@39 Dan told me not to dump my husband just for going to see an escort without telling me. I forgave the lie, but now the truth just keep piling up and piling up, and my husband's needs keep evolving beyond my comfort zone. I said "for better and for worse," and I'm giving him leeway to figure out what he wants in life... but I wonder whether at some point I should be saying "no" to him. I'm in pain, and he's having fun. I just don't understand whether for our 15 years of monogamy he was in pain while I was having fun, or whether this is all just him pushing like a child to find out what the limits are. This is all new, it's like he's a different person. I'm chalking it all up to "midlife crisis," but I don't know what things will look like in 5 years.
41
@EricaP
I was taking "consequences" to mean more tangible ramifications, like jail time or wage garnishment. But yeah, I catch your drift.
I've seen you working out this thing about your husband elsewhere in the SLOG threads. You seem very unhappy about it, and personally I'm sorry, because it sounds like it sucks. But if he unilaterally changed the terms of your relationship without consulting you, or without your approval, I believe it's on you, not society, to let him know that it's not cool. I believe society should only intervene when there's damage being caused - like if this was causing your kids undue psychological harm.
If you're willing to live with him having a girlfriend in order to keep him around, then that's not society's business, it's yours. Societal shaming works both ways, you know. Instead of (or while) saying it's dickish of him to pull a move like that, society could also say you're spineless for staying with him.
But I'm not saying that, because as far as I can tell, no one in your relationship is being seriously harmed, and I don't know the details. And that's kind of the point - each relationship is singular to those two (or more) people who have entered into it, and society doesn't know the details. So why should the rest of us be used as judges in anyone else's relationship?
I was taking "consequences" to mean more tangible ramifications, like jail time or wage garnishment. But yeah, I catch your drift.
I've seen you working out this thing about your husband elsewhere in the SLOG threads. You seem very unhappy about it, and personally I'm sorry, because it sounds like it sucks. But if he unilaterally changed the terms of your relationship without consulting you, or without your approval, I believe it's on you, not society, to let him know that it's not cool. I believe society should only intervene when there's damage being caused - like if this was causing your kids undue psychological harm.
If you're willing to live with him having a girlfriend in order to keep him around, then that's not society's business, it's yours. Societal shaming works both ways, you know. Instead of (or while) saying it's dickish of him to pull a move like that, society could also say you're spineless for staying with him.
But I'm not saying that, because as far as I can tell, no one in your relationship is being seriously harmed, and I don't know the details. And that's kind of the point - each relationship is singular to those two (or more) people who have entered into it, and society doesn't know the details. So why should the rest of us be used as judges in anyone else's relationship?
42
@EricaP
Sorry, you posted 40 before I was done with 41, now I feel dickish.
Are you letting him know that this is hurting you? Have you asked him if he was unhappy during the 15 years of monogamy? If it was, and he didn't have the balls to say anything about it until two kids and 15 years deep into a monogamous marriage, that doesn't mean that you're obligated to let him have whatever fun he wants to. You are allowed to say "no," at least until you can both work out a compromise where the hurt is mitigated. Both of you need to work out your pain before you start bringing other people into your primary relationship.
Sorry, you posted 40 before I was done with 41, now I feel dickish.
Are you letting him know that this is hurting you? Have you asked him if he was unhappy during the 15 years of monogamy? If it was, and he didn't have the balls to say anything about it until two kids and 15 years deep into a monogamous marriage, that doesn't mean that you're obligated to let him have whatever fun he wants to. You are allowed to say "no," at least until you can both work out a compromise where the hurt is mitigated. Both of you need to work out your pain before you start bringing other people into your primary relationship.
44
EricaP, I don't think there's a lot I can add to Delishuss' posts.
Opening a formerly closed relationship takes a lot of work, especially on the part of the person who broached the subject in the first place. He needs to be clear that your needs and happiness matter just as much as his.
If he's using it as an excuse to act like a teenage jerk, then it's time to close shop again and make sure both of you are happy again before moving forward.
Opening a formerly closed relationship takes a lot of work, especially on the part of the person who broached the subject in the first place. He needs to be clear that your needs and happiness matter just as much as his.
If he's using it as an excuse to act like a teenage jerk, then it's time to close shop again and make sure both of you are happy again before moving forward.
45
@37: You don't need Sex at Dawn to know that monogamy as a universal expectation is a very recent invention. Just take a look at the Bible, or any other ancient text.
Silvio Levy
Silvio Levy
46
peepee vagina! You're clearly a moron, and so is Ross. The menstrual discharge of the harvard crimson forced you to "refine" your pablum...for the billionth time. Funny, though, like when you play activist or political analyst.
Oh shit! GOLDY'S A GREAT BIG FAG! LOL!
Oh shit! GOLDY'S A GREAT BIG FAG! LOL!
47
EricaP@5 - I sorta get what you are saying. Let me go a step further:
Dan Savage makes this monogamish thing sound so rational, so easy. But in truth, coming to your monogamous partner and asking for advanced permission to sleep with another confronts insecurities. Especially when its personal, as in "I don't want to just sleep with another, but with my co-worker Craig"
I would argue sexual jealousy and nonmonogamy both seem to come naturally.
So to expand on your point, is there something to be said for the old model of don't ask don't tell? Getting your needs met outside the marriage discreetly, safely and occasionally? Doesn't that allow the myth of the relationship to continue? Aren't these part of the "hundreds of white lies" we tell our spouses to spare them shame that Dan Savage advocates? Like how you wouldn't tell your partner that your ex was way better at blow jobs, etc?
And if you combined these white lies with the knowledge that monogamy is hard, and forgiveness should be available, that would allow the safety valve without the insecurities of watching your man of 15 years and father of your children openly gush new relationship energy?
Sorry, I have more questions than answers.
Dan Savage makes this monogamish thing sound so rational, so easy. But in truth, coming to your monogamous partner and asking for advanced permission to sleep with another confronts insecurities. Especially when its personal, as in "I don't want to just sleep with another, but with my co-worker Craig"
I would argue sexual jealousy and nonmonogamy both seem to come naturally.
So to expand on your point, is there something to be said for the old model of don't ask don't tell? Getting your needs met outside the marriage discreetly, safely and occasionally? Doesn't that allow the myth of the relationship to continue? Aren't these part of the "hundreds of white lies" we tell our spouses to spare them shame that Dan Savage advocates? Like how you wouldn't tell your partner that your ex was way better at blow jobs, etc?
And if you combined these white lies with the knowledge that monogamy is hard, and forgiveness should be available, that would allow the safety valve without the insecurities of watching your man of 15 years and father of your children openly gush new relationship energy?
Sorry, I have more questions than answers.
48
Joe et al., I completely agree. And I do not think Ross is twisting Dan's words at all. He said very plainly that he felt monogamy was ridiculous, and that people who cheat a few times over a long marriage are doing great at it. Seriously, Dan does not get monogamy, not at all. So when people who prefer to have multiple partners, or be monogamish, complain when those who are monogamous and have never tried anything else start judging their relationships and telling them what's unnatural or good, it's no different. Here we have Savage, who is not monogamous, insisting that monogamy is really fucking hard, because it's unnatural. Sorry, no. Monogamy is natural and easy and fun for many people JUST LIKE BEING GAY is. Why is that so hard to understand? What evidence did the authors of Sex at Dawn ever provide to contradict that? (And I agree, reliance on their shoddy work that leaps to unwarranted conclusions is just undermining Dan's credibility on this even further.)
Dan's comments suggest that even if monogamy is okay for some people, they are a minority who have to struggle at it, and when they fail, which they usually will, they should just be cool with it and stop ruining their marriages over it. But Dan, that is what works for YOU. Stop imposing your own narrow view of morality and relationships on everyone else who is naturally different from you, eh? It's really beyond pathetic, this hypocritical claim that monogamy is okay, when every part of the rest of the argument is a slam against monogamy and those who prefer it or don't in fact find it a terrible burden.
Dan's comments suggest that even if monogamy is okay for some people, they are a minority who have to struggle at it, and when they fail, which they usually will, they should just be cool with it and stop ruining their marriages over it. But Dan, that is what works for YOU. Stop imposing your own narrow view of morality and relationships on everyone else who is naturally different from you, eh? It's really beyond pathetic, this hypocritical claim that monogamy is okay, when every part of the rest of the argument is a slam against monogamy and those who prefer it or don't in fact find it a terrible burden.
49
@45 Has monogamy always been a universal expectation? certainly not, but that is not the argument that 37 was trying to make. The argument made was that prehistoric monogamy/nonmonogamy are not mutually exclusive - that both are likely natural occurences and likely coexisted in prehistoric times
50
Jesus, if we're going to talk about "natural", we need a specific definition so we're talking about the same thing: "God-given" or some variant doesn't work, because there is no god, and the frequent meaning of "without human intervention" also doesn't work, as we're talking about human behavior. This whole argument and much of teh comment thread is fucking stupid, because you're all arguing over nothing using different definitions of "natural" and equating a higher value to those things that are "natural" than those that aren't (either a stronger "innate" drive or some sort of moral superiority) without any particular reason to do so.
A majority of people are bad at monogamy - we know this because a majority of people have "cheated" on a sexual partner, according to every single sexual behavior survey ever*. Sex at Dawn suggests that there's evidence from the evolutionary record and early human societies that primates (actually, all mammals), including humans, have strong biological/genetic behavioral predispositions to seek out multiple sexual partners. That doesn't mean that monogamy as a practice is going to necessarily be something at which any individual will succeed or not succeed, and it doesn't mean monogamy is necessarily a good or bad thing for a given individual or couple to be trying to practice. The whole "natural" question is meaningless - monogamy is not biologically prescribed nor proscribed (in the sense that it is not, based solely on genetic or otherwise uncontrollable physical environmental factors, a practice of which one will necessarily be successful or unsuccessful), and we're dealing with the question of behavior in a particular cultural-historical context, one from which we cannot extract ourselves. The only relevant questions are whether it's a good idea to have monogamy as a (coercive) cultural norm, a cultural ideal, or neither, and exactly how pissed we think people have a right to be when whatever percentage of people that we know fail at the practice do so (assuming we decide to make it a norm or ideal).
Enough with the fucking Naturalism.
*Actually, all of the ones I've read; I haven't read them all, I'm just using hyperbole to make a point.
@34: Oh good, someone else who hasn't missed the last 100 years of theories of human behavior.
More...
A majority of people are bad at monogamy - we know this because a majority of people have "cheated" on a sexual partner, according to every single sexual behavior survey ever*. Sex at Dawn suggests that there's evidence from the evolutionary record and early human societies that primates (actually, all mammals), including humans, have strong biological/genetic behavioral predispositions to seek out multiple sexual partners. That doesn't mean that monogamy as a practice is going to necessarily be something at which any individual will succeed or not succeed, and it doesn't mean monogamy is necessarily a good or bad thing for a given individual or couple to be trying to practice. The whole "natural" question is meaningless - monogamy is not biologically prescribed nor proscribed (in the sense that it is not, based solely on genetic or otherwise uncontrollable physical environmental factors, a practice of which one will necessarily be successful or unsuccessful), and we're dealing with the question of behavior in a particular cultural-historical context, one from which we cannot extract ourselves. The only relevant questions are whether it's a good idea to have monogamy as a (coercive) cultural norm, a cultural ideal, or neither, and exactly how pissed we think people have a right to be when whatever percentage of people that we know fail at the practice do so (assuming we decide to make it a norm or ideal).
Enough with the fucking Naturalism.
*Actually, all of the ones I've read; I haven't read them all, I'm just using hyperbole to make a point.
@34: Oh good, someone else who hasn't missed the last 100 years of theories of human behavior.
51
45/49: Another important aspect of this issue is that in many past (and present) cultural contexts, monogamy was expected of women, but not men. Dan's solution is apparently to open all the other avenues to women as well as to men, but that misses the fundamental point: the structure of this situation is inherently exploitative and sexist. Simply letting women do the same thing doesn't seem like a great solution, as many feminists already have explained to us. Feminists, and especially lesbian feminists, have done all this pioneering work in trying to redefine relationships, creating more open sexual options while maintaining equality and trust. So it's a little depressing to hear this ancient argument that since it's "natural" for men, especially, to run around sowing their seed more freely, we ought to lighten up and grant some more freedom in relationships. To do otherwise is pointless and restrictive, ruining more marriages than it saves. But what's the actual evidence for the claim that opening marriages helps to stabilize them? I hear Dan say this all the time, but have no reason to believe it's true as a blanket statement. Maybe true for some, and not for others. Why is this so hard to acknowledge?
52
@51 Dan has never made a blanket statement that opening up any relationship will stabilize it. He's stated that it CAN, not that it WILL. Dan's trying to say that a couple hasn't failed if they decided to open up a relationship. Certainly opening up won't save all marriages, but it has the potential to save some.
53
Its true that nonmonogamy has a history of being one sided, but that doesn't mean women were void of nonmonogamous impulses. Its not about evening the score, but about allowing people to make their own choices and follow their own impulses.
54
If nonmonogamy was an impulse for men, it was likely an impulse for women that was just repressed
55
@32 What seemed angry about the post? I wasn't angry, as it happens. I was a little baffled is all. Not that I ascribe to the view that anyone who's angry is wrong. (They seemed really into that when I was living in London, go fig.) So now that we have that cleared up: do you understand that you've misrepresented Dan's views, and that you're wrong about the history of human sexuality?
58
Tim Horton @47: I'm in pain now, but I can bear it because there's something solid for which I'm enduring the pain - our marriage. If our marriage were a fraud, built on years of lies, the pain would be much worse (though short lived, as I wouldn't hesitate to get a divorce).
59
@55
Tone and content are how, in this case I determined you seemed angry. Your message was filled with attempts to insult, calling me out for not reading the article, declaring that I must have never read anything by Dan Savage, and accusing of me of lacking due thought and consideration.
These are the arguments of an angry person.
And no, I have not misrepresented anyone's views, I've been reading Dan's writings for nearly 20 years, so I do have some context. Plus, he states in his article that monogamy is not natural, although it is not phrased exactly as such, its meaning and weight are carried through.
Also, you cannot state with any certainty that humans have only been prone to monogamy for less than 10% of our existence. On this issue, you are very wrong and make your argument based solely on assumption.
There are modern animals, mammals, reptiles, birds and even insects that are prone to lifelong monogamy, so surely, it is no stretch to assume that these creatures were practicing monogamy millions of years ago. Well if these creatures have been monogamous, then they obviously did not get it from the bible or any other similar source, so it would seem natural. If it is natural for wild creatures to practice monogamy, then why would it not be natural for prehistoric humans to practice monogamy? Of all the billions of human and human-like creatures that have inhabited this planet for so many years, is it really that hard to imagine that some of these humans practiced monogamy prior to historical times?
Ultimately, you seem like you carry a lot of anger because of your writings and response when you asked "do you understand that you've misrepresented..." These types of questions are not designed to be informative, they are combative: Combat is the language of the angry person.
I wish you luck, and calmness.
Regards, Joe
More...
Tone and content are how, in this case I determined you seemed angry. Your message was filled with attempts to insult, calling me out for not reading the article, declaring that I must have never read anything by Dan Savage, and accusing of me of lacking due thought and consideration.
These are the arguments of an angry person.
And no, I have not misrepresented anyone's views, I've been reading Dan's writings for nearly 20 years, so I do have some context. Plus, he states in his article that monogamy is not natural, although it is not phrased exactly as such, its meaning and weight are carried through.
Also, you cannot state with any certainty that humans have only been prone to monogamy for less than 10% of our existence. On this issue, you are very wrong and make your argument based solely on assumption.
There are modern animals, mammals, reptiles, birds and even insects that are prone to lifelong monogamy, so surely, it is no stretch to assume that these creatures were practicing monogamy millions of years ago. Well if these creatures have been monogamous, then they obviously did not get it from the bible or any other similar source, so it would seem natural. If it is natural for wild creatures to practice monogamy, then why would it not be natural for prehistoric humans to practice monogamy? Of all the billions of human and human-like creatures that have inhabited this planet for so many years, is it really that hard to imagine that some of these humans practiced monogamy prior to historical times?
Ultimately, you seem like you carry a lot of anger because of your writings and response when you asked "do you understand that you've misrepresented..." These types of questions are not designed to be informative, they are combative: Combat is the language of the angry person.
I wish you luck, and calmness.
Regards, Joe
60
I think the term "natural" is useful in this wise if it is used in the sense of "easily works with human natures". I'm generally comptuous of This is Human Nature arguments, but there do seem to be sets of patterns.
One of them is "I'm monogamous." It seems to be in my nature, and I've been a little testy with Mr Savage in the past when he's come off as yet another person telling us what we're like who bases his opinions on himself, his friends, and his (very specific) other pieces of information, for example the many letters from a self-selected group of unhappy or dissatisfied people.
Start again: I am monogamous. I would be perturbed if my wife were to take up with another, even casually, and I have never wanted to have sex with another woman except in the most theoretical, "That might be nice" sense which I think is of a different class from ever even considering trying to make that happen. Being monogamous appears to be my nature, and I find it very, very, easy.
But I don't consider my aspie arse to be representative of anyone else in particular. Since the evidence seems to show that a lot of other people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining monogamy, I'd say that monogamy is not natural for them.
I guess I'm just trying to say what President Kang said: "Abortions on demand for some, tiny American flags for others!"
I am, though, worried about the power relationships in a culture so primitive that people have to work to survive, or get money from someone who does. In that case I think the partner wanting the more open relationship should defer if at all possible to the less powerful member of the couple if they are not one and the same...because I consider a good chunk of being in love is the refusal to exercise power.
More...
One of them is "I'm monogamous." It seems to be in my nature, and I've been a little testy with Mr Savage in the past when he's come off as yet another person telling us what we're like who bases his opinions on himself, his friends, and his (very specific) other pieces of information, for example the many letters from a self-selected group of unhappy or dissatisfied people.
Start again: I am monogamous. I would be perturbed if my wife were to take up with another, even casually, and I have never wanted to have sex with another woman except in the most theoretical, "That might be nice" sense which I think is of a different class from ever even considering trying to make that happen. Being monogamous appears to be my nature, and I find it very, very, easy.
But I don't consider my aspie arse to be representative of anyone else in particular. Since the evidence seems to show that a lot of other people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining monogamy, I'd say that monogamy is not natural for them.
I guess I'm just trying to say what President Kang said: "Abortions on demand for some, tiny American flags for others!"
I am, though, worried about the power relationships in a culture so primitive that people have to work to survive, or get money from someone who does. In that case I think the partner wanting the more open relationship should defer if at all possible to the less powerful member of the couple if they are not one and the same...because I consider a good chunk of being in love is the refusal to exercise power.
61
Ross Douthat is not in the business of fairly representing others. Ross Douthat is not in the business of helping people. Ross Douthat is not in the business of intellectual honesty.
Ross Douthat is in the business of pseudointellectual tsk tsking.
Ignore him.
Ross Douthat is in the business of pseudointellectual tsk tsking.
Ignore him.
62
@47
there's something to be said for the old model of don't ask don't tell for sure. be responsible with your deceit. but if the cat gets let out of the bag, it's not a bad idea to set some framework in order to prevent your relationship from suddenly going DefCon 1. from what I've read, this is essentially the crux of what Dan's advocating; that a slip in fidelity not necessitate the end of an otherwise good relationship. and the problem with our society is that we shame people who stick it out rather than accepting they work through it. if we as a whole could at least arrive at that, THEN we can start talking about what's acceptable non-monogamous behavior without all the baggage that comes along with it.
there's something to be said for the old model of don't ask don't tell for sure. be responsible with your deceit. but if the cat gets let out of the bag, it's not a bad idea to set some framework in order to prevent your relationship from suddenly going DefCon 1. from what I've read, this is essentially the crux of what Dan's advocating; that a slip in fidelity not necessitate the end of an otherwise good relationship. and the problem with our society is that we shame people who stick it out rather than accepting they work through it. if we as a whole could at least arrive at that, THEN we can start talking about what's acceptable non-monogamous behavior without all the baggage that comes along with it.
63
@ EricaP
I'm sorry to hear that your situation has drifted into uncomfortableness. It sounds that you are being GGG in the extreme, and are putting in effort to get past the pain and confusion, and invest in your marriage.
It also sounds that Mr. P isn't. I would think that he has a great responsibility [towards you, your relationship, and even his own desires] to not just get sucked up into his new GF.
I assume that you are each other's Primary. That should come with some minimum of sensitivity, attention, reassurance, &c. I think that, "giving him leeway to figure out what he wants in life," can only work if he can self-impose some limits, or at least be more proactive in checking in with your comfort levels and in assuring you of your primary bond.
He should enjoy his newby, but he should be worshipping you--not letting you languish--for allowing him that freedom.
I hope things are better than they sound, and that you find yourself in a more comfortable place soon.
I'm sorry to hear that your situation has drifted into uncomfortableness. It sounds that you are being GGG in the extreme, and are putting in effort to get past the pain and confusion, and invest in your marriage.
It also sounds that Mr. P isn't. I would think that he has a great responsibility [towards you, your relationship, and even his own desires] to not just get sucked up into his new GF.
I assume that you are each other's Primary. That should come with some minimum of sensitivity, attention, reassurance, &c. I think that, "giving him leeway to figure out what he wants in life," can only work if he can self-impose some limits, or at least be more proactive in checking in with your comfort levels and in assuring you of your primary bond.
He should enjoy his newby, but he should be worshipping you--not letting you languish--for allowing him that freedom.
I hope things are better than they sound, and that you find yourself in a more comfortable place soon.
64
@42, 44, 63 - we talked, I'm feeling better tonight. Thanks for reminding me to speak up for myself.
65
Nominated for oblivion: "The courage of (one's) convictions."
Or, barring that, use it as the trigger for the Ross Douthat drinking game.
Or, barring that, use it as the trigger for the Ross Douthat drinking game.
67
@59: There actually aren't any animals, other than humans, that enter into sexually exclusive pairings. There are plenty of species that are socially monogamous, but DNA tests reveal that they do indeed mate with several different mates, given the opportunity.
68
Monogamy is as "unnatural" as threesomes, and open relationships where couples discuss who they can and can't date and as "unnatural" as bondage and golden showers. It's irrelevant what is "natural." It is natural for males to eat the young of other males. It is natural for females to have sex and get pregnant with someone she'll never see again. There are very few if any examples of non-monogamous, pair bonds in which the members of the pair are aware of and absolutely fine with the non-monogamy.
In order to have a reasonable discussion about successful relationships, we need to stop using this tired non-argument that one kind of relationship is "natural" and another kind isn't.
In order to have a reasonable discussion about successful relationships, we need to stop using this tired non-argument that one kind of relationship is "natural" and another kind isn't.
69
Monogamy is difficult for MOST? Please! I agree with your basic argument but I would like to see facts to say that it is difficult for most people. Watch your words SavMan...
70
67, what you're saying isn't true. There are genetically monogamous species, and species in which the level of genetic monogamy is very high--much higher than humans, for example. But in general, 68 is correct: it's pointless to try for this link between what's "natural" in the animal kingdom or in our own genetic pasts, and what's "natural" for people to do today. Even if it could be solved for, which it cannot, we choose behaviors regardless of natural tendencies or impulses all the time. And ethics, while it isn't unconnected from biology, certainly isn't determined by it.
71
67 - there are birds whose monogamy scores are somewhere around 95% or even 97%. ie, 95% of their kids come from their recognized partner.
that's pretty darned good.
that's pretty darned good.
72
@70/71: The 95% score is interesting, but I wonder how much of it is opportunity-based: that is, if we were to take some of these supposedly monogamous birds, and put them in a cage with a whole bunch of other potential mates, is it really true that only 5% or so would "cheat"? Since birds are not really capable of forming agreements or thinking about ethics, I'm betting we'd see a higher percentage of mating outside of the monogamous pairing.
But, yes, there is a whole range of animal behavior, from very-non-monogamous to almost monogamy. My point is that you're never going to find perfect monogamy, or "resisting temptation" in the animal kingdom (but let me know if I'm wrong; I'm interested in your expertise).
But, yes, there is a whole range of animal behavior, from very-non-monogamous to almost monogamy. My point is that you're never going to find perfect monogamy, or "resisting temptation" in the animal kingdom (but let me know if I'm wrong; I'm interested in your expertise).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (72) RSS