What Does This Mean?
Since I'm on a 'respectful disagreement' kick, I encourage everyone to check out Andrew Sullivan's take on men's capacity for monogamy. I respectfully disagree that discretion and hypocrisy should follow marital infidelity. As a matter of fact, I think that just encourages more marital infidelity (which I think is bad).
For a post supporting the latter view, check out this discussion over at Ann Althouse's blog. Your opinions, as always, are welcome.
posted by Joshua @ 11:23 PM
7 Comments:
Yay, of course, let's put in some more side statements about the fact that men are not as monogamous as women. Such fucking garbage in the year 2006 really really pisses me off.
First of all, the revolution and the 'sexual liberation of women' that followed taught us that women enjoy and want sex just as much, if not more, as men do. Before the western liberalization of views on sexuality and before the widespread use of protection, women had more to lose through infidelity, and through sex in general, so I am willing to grant that, yes, men _were_ more faithless. Now, the playing-field is substantially more levelled, and the consequences for women for cheating are pretty much the same as they are for men - a ruined marriage, a ruined financial situation. But hey, still have your health, no extra baby, and your village is not stoning you to death. Yet, the idea that men are _still_ faithless more often persists.
Why the persistence of the view that men are the cheating bastards? Why is monogamy supposedly any harder for men than it is for women?
Men are still guilty of are being loud-mouthed idiots that tell their friends about their conquests. Women are substantially more discrete, so what we get in the popular media is a terrible confirmation bias: We cling to the idea that men cheat, we watch talk shows (Oprah, anyone?) that repeatedly puts only females that were victims of cheating, we run un-scientific tests that ask people "do you cheat?", and, lo and behold, turns out men cheat more because they admit to it more often.
The hypocrisy of monogamy is only terrible because it is consistently paraded that more often than not women are the victims of infidelity, and only men have something to gain from the idea that infidelities are to be forgiven - or, from an even better idea that everybody should be in a polyamorous relationship or something.
(OK, people, before the feminists get riled up - the original article and I are only talking about infidelity. I am not talking about women being victims of rape or other horrendous things - it is still true that women are substantially more often on the victim end of things there)
Well, ok, first I bristle a little bit at your mention of ‘the feminists’ getting riled up. I think you made your argument very clear and only the most hyper-sensitive would read your post as anything but concerning infidelity. I think you’ll find most feminists (including guys) to be fairly rational people who are aware that women can cheat just as often as men can.
That aside, I absolutely agree with both of you. I would say honesty is the most important thing in any relationship. However, I don’t necessarily think infidelity is bad, as long as both partners are honest about this. I personally would have a problem with my significant other sleeping with other women, but I know of open relationships where both partners are perfectly content. While it is the truth that both men and women can cheat equally, I would say there are those people in both sexes that are just not meant for monogamy. As long as they and their partner are both comfortable with this and are aware of this, who’s to say their relationship is less healthy than the monogamous couple who bicker constantly?
Theoretically, I find the concept of an open non-monogamous relationship to be very appealing. Even more appealing I find the variation where not every relationship is equal - where, two participants consider each other their 'primary' partner but are still allowed to see other partners (as opposed to the situation where everyone is on equal footing with everyone else - I can't really see how that arrangement could work long-term, show me to be wrong if you can). I say 'theoretically' because I have never been in an open relationship, though not for a lack of trying - for some reason I just haven't been attracting the progressive types. What bothers me is that amongst people that I know I have never seen an open relationship work well over long-term, honesty or not - so, while it's very reassuring to read your comment, or to read "The Ethical Slut" or some article in the New Yorker that has lots of anecdotes of people being perfectly content in their poly-arrangement, it all remains in the abstract. In the immediate surroundings I just see people remain perpetually single, or perpetually monogamous, or perpetually loose - and if those are the only three choices presented, I would have to say that the monogamous is the most healthy and desirable (even though the loose is substantially more exciting).
Hmm.
There's a lot for me to unpack in your statement that infidelity is okay if people are honest about it. In basic terms, 'infidelity' and 'honesty' mean opposite things: infidelity denotes a lack of trust, while honesty is trust. So, at first blush, your statement is akin to saying, "Theft is okay if people hand their stuff over willingly." Well, then it's not theft, is it?
But getting down to the matter, I think you're playing a bit loose with your rhetorical question "who’s to say their relationship is less healthy than the monogamous couple who bicker constantly?" When comparing strict monogamy with a looser, polyamorous version, it's completely unfair and inaccurate to take a bad version of the the former to compare with an ideal version of the latter.
The question isn't whether abusive relationships are inferior to unabusive ones. We know the answer to that. The question is whether attitudes toward monogamy affect its overall success.
Admittedly, I am personally unfamiliar with the so-called "open relationship," so I speak more out of theoretical understanding than anything else. But how can this be something we'd want to promote for relationships on the rocks?
If we're saying that some people are incompatible with monogamy, aren't we giving everyone the option out? "I wasn't cheating, dear, I was just, well, maybe I'm not compatible with monogamy. So I'd like to continue relations with you, just more people, too."
But because this relates to sex, immediately it becomes this silly political thing where we (pace Sullivan) have to talk about our explorations and our revolutionary blah blah blah. This may make one feel better, but it borders on self-indulgent rationalization for a lack of impulse control.
If someone ate ridiculous amounts of food simply because they could and they wanted to, we wouldn't declare it a bold political statement of rights. We'd call it gluttony. How is it that sexual voraciousness and partner-swapping is celebrated as liberating? Because it looks like more fun?
I don't write any of this because I have anything against sexuality or liberty. I like them both! But what I dislike is the idea that no one can be called into account for irresponsible behavior, or that they can simply say that they are not suited for responsible behavior.
It seems to me that we have arrived at a point where we - as individuals in society - are more afraid of seeming 'judgmental' than actually stopping people from walking off the cliff if it hurts their feelings. Am I the only one this strikes as absurd?
Several things:
I used the term ‘infidelity’ because that was the word bandied about. It was an incorrect word choice, and you’re correct in referring to ‘open relationships.’ My bad.
Also, I was not trying to say that open relationships are cures to rocky/unhappy relationships. I would say open relationships probably lead to more unhappiness, most of the time. When I compared it to bickering couples, I was saying that no relationship is perfect – if the people involved are happy, honest, and mature about it, who are any of us to say that whatever arrangement they have is wrong/unnatural/irresponsible?
Your example - "I wasn't cheating, dear, I was just, well, maybe I'm not compatible with monogamy. So I'd like to continue relations with you, just more people, too."
That would not be an open relationship, that would be a cop-out, and the person involved should be kicked to the curb. If you know yourself well enough that you do not want to be physically involved with just one person, you have a responsibility to tell your partner that before you get serious. If your partner is ok with this, than by all means live your life the way that you want to.
I don’t consider people who believe in monogamy prudes- I myself am one of them. However, I’ve seen others who can make it work for short or long terms, and I don’t believe that I know enough about relationships to judge how others make theirs work. I guess I just don’t consider open relationships by nature to be irresponsible, which Tac does. In my line of work (reality tv) I’ve seen all manner of families and couples, and the most odd, non-traditional arrangements can work for couples, even couples with children, as long as both partners are mature about it. I’d estimate probably 90% of people out there are either incapable or not interested in any kind of open relationship (again, I include myself here), so I’m not advocating that everyone should try it – But for those couples who can make it work (and it would take serious work), do what works for you.
Tac, the reason that promiscuity comes across as "liberating" while gluttony does not is that we're coming out of the long dark age of Modonaa/Whore dichotomy, which did more to subjugate women into sexual roles than anything else. There's never been a time in history where pigging out one night would brand your family with shame and label you as a glutton forever, but this is exactly where women have been until, roughly, our parents' age. The fact that this virgin-or-slut mentality still exists in so many places means that, yes, casual sex becomes liberating when the woman doesn't let it define her as a person. I don't know if I'd call it a political statement either (if it is, it's a very myopic one) but it has everything to do with claiming freedom.
That said, I'm a HUGE proponent of marital fideilty. Non-marital fidelity as well, for that matter. Infidelity is the oposite of respect in a relationship, and is by its nature a betrayal. If you'recheating, or thinking of cheating, ask yourself why you're in the realtionship to begin with. The answer will always be that you can't summon the balls to end it. Cheating is a show of weakness, and in regard to marraiges, shows a disturbing tendency towards the idea that if a marraige takes work, it's not worth the time. In the best marraiges I've seen - and I'm including my own parents in this - the spouses are at odds as often as not, but have enough faith in eachother and in their own love that they are willing to fight it out with the knowledge that once they're done, they'll be back in one another's arms again.
Getting around to my point, the "liberation" has much more to do with promiscuity than with infidelity, and non-marital promiscuity is good, in my opinion. Instead of marrying the guy or gal who caught your eye at sixteen, just so you can get your groove on before finding out that y'all aren't really right for eachother, you get to shop around in a manner that lets you know what you're actually looking for. I firmly believe that if two people want to sleep together, but aren't doing so, no amount of time together will make them truly open and comfortable, for every encounter will be tinged with sexual tension. Also, your romantic and sexual ideals at seventeen will - hopefully - differ from the your ideals at fifty, and you deserve to be able to find someone who can grow with you in all regards. Two teenage virgins blushing at eachother are counting on a crapshoot if they want this to happen. If you play the field when you're young, you can enter into matrimony without feeling like you've missed anything. You'll have had good times and bad, but you'll also know that you've seen the dating scene, and it pales in comparison to the person you've finally decided to spend the rest of your life with. And if you did your teens and early-twenties right, you can hit your mid-life crisis wanting a new car instead of a fling with a twenty-two-year-old, because you already know that the twenty-two-year-old has myriad problems you don't even want to deal with.
So in other words, promiscuity good, infidelity bad. Sow your oats when you're young (both sexes) and still getting a grip on things. Then, when you do get married, realize that it takes constant work, and have the fortitude to own your decision. Don't cheat. It's cheating.
Your website has a useful information for beginners like me.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home