Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Politics / Sex Thought For The Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Dying* is easy, monogamy is hard.
One day we're gonna put screw and screw together and realize that the problem is our unrealistic and unnatural fixation on monogamy and not that "some men just can't keep it in their pants." Human beings aren't wired to be sexually monogamous—male or female—and the feigned shock with which we're required to greet each new revelation of infidelity on the part of an elected official, a reality-show star, or a sports figure would be comical if the costs weren't so great. Elevating monogamy over all else—insisting that it, and it alone, is true love's only marker—destroys marriages and families and careers.
Which is not to say that anything goes and that people shouldn't be expected to honor their commitments and that there aren't folks out there who're capable of remaining monogamous over the three, four, five, or six decade course of a marriage. But think of all the people who've cheated and gotten caught. Now think about all the people who've cheated and gotten away with it. Our ideals about the place of sex within marriage are at war with who and what we are. They're at war with reality. Sex is powerful, relationships are fragile. Why on earth do we insist on pitting them against each other?
* Physically, politically.
2
we're not wired to be civil to strangers, either, but we do it. Besides, you're wrong. Plenty of people are capable of, and successful at, monogamy, too.
3
One of the reasons we see celebrities, politicians, and other well-known people cheat is that they have a higher perceived quality of alternatives to their current relationship.
For most of us nobodies, it's easier to be monogamous because there aren't tons of willing and highly desireable people chasing after us.
For someone with fame, power, wealth, or high attractiveness though, they have such a huge pool of potential alternate partners, they're more likely to take that chance.
For most of us nobodies, it's easier to be monogamous because there aren't tons of willing and highly desireable people chasing after us.
For someone with fame, power, wealth, or high attractiveness though, they have such a huge pool of potential alternate partners, they're more likely to take that chance.
4
@ 2: "we're not wired to be civil to strangers, either, but we do it."
fuck off!! jerkwad!!! like hell we do.
fuck off!! jerkwad!!! like hell we do.
5
@2:
"Which is not to say that... there aren't folks out there who're capable of remaining monogamous over the three, four, five, or six decade course of a marriage."
"Which is not to say that... there aren't folks out there who're capable of remaining monogamous over the three, four, five, or six decade course of a marriage."
6
@2 Word.
Stop with the pseudo-science Dan unless you can back up your "we're not wired...." comments. Citations please. And no, anecdotal conversations or 'just look around you' are not evidence to support your conclusion. If you want to qualify it by saying some can (or can't), then you're off the hook.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
I will say that monogamy shouldn't be held as superior to the many other configurations.
Stop with the pseudo-science Dan unless you can back up your "we're not wired...." comments. Citations please. And no, anecdotal conversations or 'just look around you' are not evidence to support your conclusion. If you want to qualify it by saying some can (or can't), then you're off the hook.
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
I will say that monogamy shouldn't be held as superior to the many other configurations.
7
Dan, I've seen you write in print several times now that monogamy should not be held in such high regard in our society. And, in theory, I pretty much agree with you. But how are marriages actually supposed to put this in practice? How do YOU put this into practice? ("Honey, I promise not to sleep around, but don't get too upset if it does happen some day..."). What kind of societal standards would you really see as effective?
8
thanks for talking sense Dan. I wish it wasn't so very impolitic to say something so self evidently true. It's blindingly obvious that sexual desire is not a question of ideals, morality, political party or legal status - we're talking hard-wired biological impulses. And no priest, no Governor, no Justice-of-the-peace will ever be able to legislate, moralize or shame those impulses out of existence.
11
I think Urgutha pretty much nailed it. I had no difficulty being monogamous while I was married, but then again, I didn't have scads of nubile young things throwing themselves at me either.
12
@7 There are a number of books out there telling you how open relationships might work. I highly recommend Opening Up by Tristan Taormino, and Ethical Slut is good if you're thinking more about the sexual aspect and less about the relationship aspect (IMO).
13
whats messed up is a politicians wife saying "I'm aware he sleeps with other women and we have an agreement" would piss off the religious far more than an "I made a mistake and i'm very very sorry." ever would.
hurtful indiscretion would be easier for them to forgive than willfully having different values.
hurtful indiscretion would be easier for them to forgive than willfully having different values.
14
How is it possible that I actually had a moment of "not ANOTHER Republican?!?" As much as I enjoy the glorious schadenfreude of watching the other party drown in the hypocrisy of their self-righteousness, I worry about the SAMENESS of it all. Another day, another sex scandal for a Republican male. Always male. Hmm.
15
Whether we're wired to be monogamous or polygamous isn't really the point, I think. It's the fact that right wingers are so simplistic and narrow in their thinking about marriage, family, etc. Life is far more complicated than they have it in their small minds. ...And it apparently sometimes involves affairs with secret mistresses in the southern hemisphere. ...while "hiking."
17
At this point, the Rapture could blow through and the Talibangelicals would be too busy secretly sucking and fucking like porn superstars to notice.
18
i'm not wired to get up and go to the office every morning at 9am, or to do lots of other boring crap that i'm expected to do as a human being.
19
@14
It's always men because they are stupid enough to get caught. Once that blood leaves their brain and heads south, they're powerless. Women are just as bad but more dangerous than men because they're clever at hiding all their dirty little secrets.
It's always men because they are stupid enough to get caught. Once that blood leaves their brain and heads south, they're powerless. Women are just as bad but more dangerous than men because they're clever at hiding all their dirty little secrets.
20
That might explain the Argentinian pussy, but not the five days when his security people don't know where he is.
21
hi everybody! Mike in MO here, & after many weeks of radio silence I have found two minutes to check out what's happening on The Slog & add my dos centavos...
I actually have this thought every time there is a high profile sex scandal. It all comes down to: you gotta get laid. And just laid, but you gotta get the type of sex you really want. E.g. Elliot Spitzer. People sat around trying to figure out why why WHY would he risk it all, etc. Simple (& I think Dan posted similar thoughts on Spitzer in particular a while back): he had to get some strange.
So yeah, it is better to try to celebrate it than fight the inevitable. That's why god invented three ways!!!
I actually have this thought every time there is a high profile sex scandal. It all comes down to: you gotta get laid. And just laid, but you gotta get the type of sex you really want. E.g. Elliot Spitzer. People sat around trying to figure out why why WHY would he risk it all, etc. Simple (& I think Dan posted similar thoughts on Spitzer in particular a while back): he had to get some strange.
So yeah, it is better to try to celebrate it than fight the inevitable. That's why god invented three ways!!!
22
Some how, the revealation that it was just plain ol' infidelity is a bit anti-climatic. I want kink dammit!
24
@12 - i've read both books recently and made my spouse read them as well. strict monogamy doesn't always work - some are more inclined to exclusivity than others. this is just social observation, not necessarily science. What I learned from both of those books and from my own experience in a 20+ year marriage is that relationships need to be open - in the sense that you need to tell all to your partner, and they to you, in order for people to understand if their relationships are working or not.
25
The more you write about this subject the more it becomes evident that you just don't understand any experience outside of your own. You can't make coherent or intelligent commentary on monogamy because you don't really understand it. You should live your life however you see fit, but it’s hard to take you seriously on this subject that you obviously can’t see why anyone would be monogamous for non-religious reasons.
26
WIRED? We are not wired for either. What works for some, doesn't work for others. Different strokes for different folks, etc.
Personally, I think monogamy works for a while. I've only been ina relationship for three years, and I'm perfectly fine. But in 20 years? Who the hell knows. If that point comes, I'll sit down and have a rational discussion with the wife. What I won't do is sniff for some strange behind her back. That's the shitiest thing you can your spouse.
Personally, I think monogamy works for a while. I've only been ina relationship for three years, and I'm perfectly fine. But in 20 years? Who the hell knows. If that point comes, I'll sit down and have a rational discussion with the wife. What I won't do is sniff for some strange behind her back. That's the shitiest thing you can your spouse.
27
@6 For reference on the "we're not wired" comment see "The Myth of Monogamy" by Barash and Lipton. Even though it's not published by a university press, it's still fairly scholarly with tons of notes and references to studies. In it they make the case that even the animals we _thought_ were monogamous aren't (for example, song birds whose male "monogamous" partners have been sterilized ending up with offspring anyway).
That's not an indictment of long term pair bonding, which is what both people and birds do. It simply states that even in those long term bonds people and animals get some on the side.
That's not an indictment of long term pair bonding, which is what both people and birds do. It simply states that even in those long term bonds people and animals get some on the side.
28
Why are people upset about the affair, but not upset that the Governor of a state literally snuck out of the country? Did his lieutenant governor know where he was? Did his staffers? If his wife didn't know, did anybody?
In other decades, wouldn't secret trips to Argentina be viewed as warranting suspicion of treason?
(Wouldn't it be awesome if the affair is a ruse to actually cover treason?)
In other decades, wouldn't secret trips to Argentina be viewed as warranting suspicion of treason?
(Wouldn't it be awesome if the affair is a ruse to actually cover treason?)
30
@15 I'm inclined to agree. This has a lot to do with the narrow nature of the conservative mindset, the abject rejection of any kind of nuance in life. Not sexually satisfied in your ideal Christian conservative marriage? Why, there's no way he can think outside the box a little and honestly confront the fact that he might have needs that can't be met under the norms he subscribes to. No, best to just run away from your problems and bang some broad in South America on Father's Day.
31
Hiring a high-priced hooker is one thing and is likely about sex. Disappearing to freakin' Argentina for a week to hook up suggests there are far more problems with this marriage than whether he's getting the quantity or quality of sex he craves at home.
Very often cheating has little to do with sex.
Very often cheating has little to do with sex.
32
Perhaps the cultural bias in favor of monogamy has something to do with a fear of chaos. If one buys into monagamy, one doesn't have to decide what kind of life one wants - it is all set out in advance. Neither does one have to negotiate with one's partner(s) on roles and responsibilities and property. . . one just settles down and lives life in a preordained fashion. Logically, monagamy isn't better than any other form of relationship ....
33
Hear, hear! (which looks much worse in type than it does said out loud)
Here's to the day where careers are ruined for the right reasons - like everything Sanford has said or done before this point in time.
Here's to the day where careers are ruined for the right reasons - like everything Sanford has said or done before this point in time.
35
It's not whether we're wired or not for monogamy. It's whether we learn to communicate effectively, without cultural hangups, about *what we want*. It's about being responsible to oneself and to those we care about.
36
good point @33: Tim Fernholz from prospect.org :
"It took an admittedly sensational story about Governor Mark Sanford's personal life to get the national press to converge on South Carolina and declare his political career "over" due to "values" issues. (Whatever, he wouldn't be the first southern governor to be a come back kid after marital infidelity). But when he attempted to deny much needed unemployment funding to people suffering under the recession while cutting school funding and the social safety net, in the name of an economically-baseless austerity policy that involved telling his weakest constituents to effectively drop dead, well, those decisions didn't threaten his political career or reflect on his values. That made him a "star" in the GOP. Priorities, priorities."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe…
"It took an admittedly sensational story about Governor Mark Sanford's personal life to get the national press to converge on South Carolina and declare his political career "over" due to "values" issues. (Whatever, he wouldn't be the first southern governor to be a come back kid after marital infidelity). But when he attempted to deny much needed unemployment funding to people suffering under the recession while cutting school funding and the social safety net, in the name of an economically-baseless austerity policy that involved telling his weakest constituents to effectively drop dead, well, those decisions didn't threaten his political career or reflect on his values. That made him a "star" in the GOP. Priorities, priorities."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe…
37
@25
What is to understand about monogamy? It means 1 sexual partner. There isn't much else about it. Monogamy and infidelity are two different things. A committed relationship doesn't necessarily have to be monogamous. But monogamy is what scares a lot of people away from commitment and I think the point of Dan's commentary isn't to tell people who have chosen a monogamous life that they are wrong, but to educate those who haven't settled down that there are other ways of being happy sexually without giving up commitment.
What is to understand about monogamy? It means 1 sexual partner. There isn't much else about it. Monogamy and infidelity are two different things. A committed relationship doesn't necessarily have to be monogamous. But monogamy is what scares a lot of people away from commitment and I think the point of Dan's commentary isn't to tell people who have chosen a monogamous life that they are wrong, but to educate those who haven't settled down that there are other ways of being happy sexually without giving up commitment.
38
Super agree #33 (and Dan). Let's get to the point where we can remember what Clinton did in office, not in his office.
39
Failures in monogamy aren't newsworthy, but hypocrisy among political leaders (who have an impact on our lives) is.
40
Letting go of the importance of monogamy, if not the practice, is key. Forbidden fruit smells sweeter, but if you look with a clear mind, you can see that it's likely rotten. In monogamy's icy grip, your partner is a controlling shrew who's keeping you from real happiness. Once you lift that requirement, your partner is the person with whom sex is easy and free, and others become less enticing, if not less attractive.
41
I suggest we add "hiking the Appalachian Trail" to the lexicon to refer to anyone who has snuck off to have an affair. I like it as a new grounds for divorce - Did Jon and Kate split because of irreconcilable differences or because he was "hiking the Appalachian Trail".
43
Dan is correct, we are not wired for monogamy. If we were, we wouldn't need a vows and/or adultery laws.
What is hard-wired, however, is society passing judgment on others. Human nature compels us to judge, especially as group (conform!).
Society sets arbitrary rules and failing to adhere to those rules results in societal punishment.
We pit sex against relationships because society loves to determine winners and losers. As a species we want to impose arbitrary rules upon ourselves so we can measure our worth against others.
You might as well ask why football players can't run out-of-bounds. There is no challenge if they could and it'd be impossible to determine winners from losers.
What is hard-wired, however, is society passing judgment on others. Human nature compels us to judge, especially as group (conform!).
Society sets arbitrary rules and failing to adhere to those rules results in societal punishment.
We pit sex against relationships because society loves to determine winners and losers. As a species we want to impose arbitrary rules upon ourselves so we can measure our worth against others.
You might as well ask why football players can't run out-of-bounds. There is no challenge if they could and it'd be impossible to determine winners from losers.
44
I'm going to agree that it is about communication, I've been monogamous for the past 20 years. It hasn't been hard, we value eachother and the relationship, we're having fun, and there is work involved. Still, if either of us felt the need to become involved with someone else, we are committed to talking about it and exploring it together. I've always liked that the word "ship" is found in relationship, communication is about keeping the ship afloat. Perhaps, it is time for monogamy to be redefined, as the one decision that works for the individuals involved?
45
@41,
Awesome! I love it, I'm using it already!
Anyone suspect any other prominent republican politicians are "hiking the Appalachian Trail?"
Awesome! I love it, I'm using it already!
Anyone suspect any other prominent republican politicians are "hiking the Appalachian Trail?"
46
6.
Damn, that's some judgmental bullshit right there. Dan's never said he "couldn't" be monogamous. He's always said he "won't" be. Because he doesn't want to be, because he wouldn't be happy. That's a big fucking difference from "can't."
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Damn, that's some judgmental bullshit right there. Dan's never said he "couldn't" be monogamous. He's always said he "won't" be. Because he doesn't want to be, because he wouldn't be happy. That's a big fucking difference from "can't."
47
@46 --- OK Doofus McJudge-a-lot. Re-read it as "Just because one can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done." Feel better?
Judgemental, my ass..... Dan's not? You're not?
Judgemental, my ass..... Dan's not? You're not?
48
Monogamy and polyamory are both kinda ridiculous. We didn't evolve to have happy long-term relationships. We evolved to reproduce. That's all we're "wired" for. Anything beyond that is inventing something beyond what biology intends for us. We're all making it up as we go along. And making ourselves miserable most of the time.
Hallelujah.
Hallelujah.
49
@ 5 (Dan). Oh come on now. You can't give an entire argument for one thing, and then throw in a half-hearted, "for anyone who says I'm wrong...well, what I said is bullshit it plenty of circumstances, but then again, look at all the times it's NOT!"
51
47.
What the fuck? That's not what you wrote and that's not what you meant, so . . . no, I won't be "re-reading" it any way but the snotty little judgmental way you originally meant it.
Which was inaccurate and wrong. Admit it or not.
Well, I can't speak for Dan, but I judge a lot of people. And I do it unapologetically and unashamedly.
Re-read it as "Just because one can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done." Feel better?
What the fuck? That's not what you wrote and that's not what you meant, so . . . no, I won't be "re-reading" it any way but the snotty little judgmental way you originally meant it.
Which was inaccurate and wrong. Admit it or not.
Judgemental, my ass..... Dan's not? You're not?
Well, I can't speak for Dan, but I judge a lot of people. And I do it unapologetically and unashamedly.
52
so, am I totally naive to think that through open and honest dialogue and full disclsure between partners that monogamy could work? Even then, if couples wanted to play around, it would openly accepted between them and ONLY them.
53
# 52 No - you're not totally naive to think monogamy can work. It does work for lots of people: see Kim's comment. However, it should be seen as ONE of a continuum of possible relationships - not the be all and end all of relationships for everyone. I think that its virtues were/ are extolled as part of the Christian church's social controls in this society.....
55
I wish your understanding and acceptance of polyamory would extend to some other issues you seem to demonize and laugh at...
56
Everyone who counts (ie. in Murrrca) knows that the only virtue that counts is Puritanism. That is the first rule of life. If ever in doubt refer to rule number one.
57
55. What other issues are those? Sincere question. The only thing I've ever read that Dan has "demonized" (strong word, but I'll go with it) is religious fundamentalism.
He laughs at the willfully ignorant, but don't we all?
He laughs at the willfully ignorant, but don't we all?
58
"Human beings aren't wired to be sexually monogamous..."
Some of us are. Some of us are not. People on one side of this divide should leave people on the other side alone. Maybe one day instead of monogamy being held up as the ideal, the ideal is treating the one you have in your arms honestly, decently and with care.
Don't promise monogamy when you can't deliver on it, just to get into someone's pants. Don't say you can deal with living in an open relationship with someone when you know you can't, just to get them into your pants. Accept your sexual temperament for what it is, and be honest with others about it, and accept what they tell you about their own.
Maybe someday we'll stop lying to ourselves. Maybe then we'll stop lying to the people we take into our arms. Maybe then we'll stop lying to our neighbors and everyone else. Imagine a world where people mostly don't lie to one another.
Some of us are. Some of us are not. People on one side of this divide should leave people on the other side alone. Maybe one day instead of monogamy being held up as the ideal, the ideal is treating the one you have in your arms honestly, decently and with care.
Don't promise monogamy when you can't deliver on it, just to get into someone's pants. Don't say you can deal with living in an open relationship with someone when you know you can't, just to get them into your pants. Accept your sexual temperament for what it is, and be honest with others about it, and accept what they tell you about their own.
Maybe someday we'll stop lying to ourselves. Maybe then we'll stop lying to the people we take into our arms. Maybe then we'll stop lying to our neighbors and everyone else. Imagine a world where people mostly don't lie to one another.
59
Bruce- beautifully stated and so true. We all need to know ourselves, honor our committments whatever agreement we have with our partner(s) and not promise things we can't live up to.
Dan-I have been monogamous for 20 yrs now and am happy as a clam, so for some monogamy is easy. The idea of sleeping with someone other than my husband is not a turn on at all for me- the "new" guy would totally not know what i like, communication with him would likely not be as comfortable, I'd have to suck in my belly and worry about my thighs- overall, there's no way it could measure up to the excellent comfortable but hot and satisfying sex I have with my husband. So just remember that while monogamy is not for everyone , it is great for some!
Dan-I have been monogamous for 20 yrs now and am happy as a clam, so for some monogamy is easy. The idea of sleeping with someone other than my husband is not a turn on at all for me- the "new" guy would totally not know what i like, communication with him would likely not be as comfortable, I'd have to suck in my belly and worry about my thighs- overall, there's no way it could measure up to the excellent comfortable but hot and satisfying sex I have with my husband. So just remember that while monogamy is not for everyone , it is great for some!
60
49 - Dan has clearly stated here and numerous other times that he doesn't think monogamy is the end-all/be-all for everyone and that there's no one right answer for every relationship. He acknowledges that monogamy works for some people, but not everyone, and our society should get over holding it up as the one and only standard for relationships.
61
@ 60. If that's the way he argued, it would be fine, but he doesn't. He consistently says monogamy is NOT a viable solution. And he can't say that he gives a caveat, so it's all good. Instead he says basically:
"Monogamy doesn't work. Monogamy doesn't work. Sometimes monogamy works, but I won't get into that or why it doesn't mean negate my point. Monogamy doesn't work. Monogamy doesn't work."
What you said would be a much more logical argument. Instead he overplays his hand.
As a parallel, a homophobe could do the same thing.
"Gays are disgusting, homosexuality is wrong, etc.
That's not to say that all gays are wrong or evil. Some of my best friends are gay. But being gay is an abomination."
See how that works?
"Monogamy doesn't work. Monogamy doesn't work. Sometimes monogamy works, but I won't get into that or why it doesn't mean negate my point. Monogamy doesn't work. Monogamy doesn't work."
What you said would be a much more logical argument. Instead he overplays his hand.
As a parallel, a homophobe could do the same thing.
"Gays are disgusting, homosexuality is wrong, etc.
That's not to say that all gays are wrong or evil. Some of my best friends are gay. But being gay is an abomination."
See how that works?
63
Incapable of monogamy? Yawn. how about over-achieving with the hypocrisy. It seems that the more a republican male flaps about "moral integrity" the more likely it is that he has a distinct lack of it.
64
Dan, it sounds like, in reaction to society's view of a non-monogamous committed relationship being freakish, you make monogamous committed relationships sound freakish. Both views are wrong, IMO.
65
Bruce, that's wonderfully stated in theory. And I have to say MOST couples have the niave assumption that when they start the relationship, they are going to end the relationship monogomous. But then life happens, and it gets complicated. And marital bliss is routine, and perhaps we start taking our partners for grantid. Then 10 years, 20 years, 30 years adds up to how many days? How many minute occurances? How many people you come across? Mariage and monogomy back in the day was a thing. Men more or less bought their wives and kept them under lock and key to ensure that them and them alone were bearing their offspring. I just seem to remember in catholic school that nobody was really sure that Jesus was a virgin, but it was very important that Mary remain a virgin.
I still find it trippy that an institution designed to subjugate women is something so many women just can't help but GET OFF ON these days.
Now enter the new milenium, where our lives can be more less expected to populated with a lot of noise and a lot of change from now until the day we die ... with an additional 20 years of quality life expectency. Perhaps in the old days, when your marriage went to shit, you might stick with it because you were probably going to die in five years. In the modern age, you have 20 plus quality years of your life left.
Which is to say perfect monogomy, perhaps is possible, but it is less likely. Maybe we should strive to be monogomous and true to ourselves AND our partner. And do the difficult crap when it comes. To the guy that made the analogy that you aren't "wired" to get up every day and go to work. I'm willing to bet that at least ONCE, you failed at getting up and going to work. Maybe you had a sleepover that you didn't want to end, or you ended up too hungover, or you decided to use a sick day. Do you hate your job, maybe you love your job, but after years of self denial, you decided ... damn it I'm not I'm going to work today and my appearance there is inconsequential.
More...
I still find it trippy that an institution designed to subjugate women is something so many women just can't help but GET OFF ON these days.
Now enter the new milenium, where our lives can be more less expected to populated with a lot of noise and a lot of change from now until the day we die ... with an additional 20 years of quality life expectency. Perhaps in the old days, when your marriage went to shit, you might stick with it because you were probably going to die in five years. In the modern age, you have 20 plus quality years of your life left.
Which is to say perfect monogomy, perhaps is possible, but it is less likely. Maybe we should strive to be monogomous and true to ourselves AND our partner. And do the difficult crap when it comes. To the guy that made the analogy that you aren't "wired" to get up every day and go to work. I'm willing to bet that at least ONCE, you failed at getting up and going to work. Maybe you had a sleepover that you didn't want to end, or you ended up too hungover, or you decided to use a sick day. Do you hate your job, maybe you love your job, but after years of self denial, you decided ... damn it I'm not I'm going to work today and my appearance there is inconsequential.
66
Most species don't do monogamous relationships. It figures that humans have sexual tendencies and traits that just don't fit a culturally imposed idea like monogamous marriage.
I think a lot of the comments here lash out out in denial, instead of really, seriously, objectively thinking about the post. But par for the course among Slog's readership. Many people seek out blogs to support their prejudices, not to question them.
I think a lot of the comments here lash out out in denial, instead of really, seriously, objectively thinking about the post. But par for the course among Slog's readership. Many people seek out blogs to support their prejudices, not to question them.
67
I read that they've discovered a gene that causes men to have difficulty bonding to new partners; I'd guess that in the couples that successfully enjoy monogamy over decades, the male partner(s) have this gene and in the less successul couples, he/they do not.
68
@ 65: Bruce's statement isn't just theory, it's truth. Why do you acknowledge Bruce's statement as theory? He did not deny that all people are wired differently and even said that not every should strive for a monogamous relationship if he/she cannot keep just one sexual partner. Bruce's statement is the most objective compared to your diatribe of "one day you'll have sex with another person who isn't your partner, just you wait and see, and once that does happen you'll nod your head and agree with me." How arrogant can you get? Just to be clear, open relationships do not work for me. Ever since I was little I could not handle having more than one love interest (I've had crushes on multiple people, but never to the extent that I had to mate with them).
69
@ 65: And I also find it slightly amusing that you bring in the history of women's inequality even when Bruce's post had nothing to with it nor did it specifically mention women. Like WTF? Do you think having an extra booty on the side with cure all problems? If you do you're delusional. If one is in a relationship, whether it's marriage or a girlfriend/boyfriend, for the long haul then honesty and communication is crucial. Maybe you should take Bruce's advice and only speak for yourself and your party, but not for others.
Comments (69) RSS