It is quite possible to be very deeply in love with two people simultaneously. Otherwise, Doctor Zhivago would have been an implausible romance novel. But like Zhivago, loving two people at once can be problematic

It is quite possible to be very deeply in love with two people simultaneously. Otherwise, Doctor Zhivago would have been an implausible romance novel. But like Zhivago, loving two people at once can be problematic

I think she's allowing the possibility that you can be in love with two people at once, but putting aside that question to say that THIS GUY is not in love with two people at once. And I agree with her that it sounds like he's just selfish and lazy and he's enjoying being able to have sex with his co-worker without the hassle of telling his wife about it. (I mean, really, what did he expect Amy to say? "Absolutely, and if you're in love with both these women you have every right to keep fucking your co-worker without your wife's knowledge of permission. It's love!")

P.S. You're talking about the second letter, not the last letter. The last letter's about Facebook.

Hmmmm...

I would argue that it is nearly impossible to sustain love with only a single person throughout a lifetime.

Also, making a judgement on this guy (I know, he asked) is nearly impossible; many people on here, including Dan, want to impose their standard onto the guy to determine whether or not he's in love.

Holding out the idea of ethical non-monogamy to this guy is a hobson's choice. The vast majority (99.9%?) of women (and men) are not prepared for a poly lifestyle. This is not a "choice" that can be brought up with any reasonable hope for a successful outcome.

To that end, I wonder if we can so easily blame men (and some women) who have affairs. Men, in general, are not built for monogamy. Men give up more to be in a committed relationship. Asking women (and men) to share their partner is not something Americans are prepared to do, and raising that option with your partner will likely end poorly (unless you're the tiny percentage who can do it).

So, I'm coming to the conclusion that people should just be discreet.

Reading for context! It can improve your understanding.

Her answer to the first question was perfect, but her answer to this question was horrible! Thank you, Dan, for nailing it -- of course you can love two people at once. It happens all the time, to men and women both. Love is not a fucking fairy tale. It's complex, and all mixed up with our biology and social mores. There are no easy definitions.

Timothy @6, I totally agree. If you can't be honest, the best you can do is be discreet.

I'm sure the depth of love this guy feels for his mistress and wife is of the same depth as Mark Sanford's.

http://gawker.com/5317977/mark-sanford-b…

I think Amy's answer was specific to the guy who wrote in. Just my $0.02.

6: Women are no more built for monogamy than men are, so they give up just as much to enter committed relationships.

One of the things I find refreshing about Ask Amy (as opposed to other more traditional major newpaper columnists) is that she doesn't mince words. When someone writes in and their question doesn't match their situation, she calls them on it. That's what I see happening here - she's zeroing in on the fact that this doof's problem isn't being in love with two women. She's not making any statement at all about the possiblity of other people being in love with two people at once.

@13 Bonefish...a life of experience and observation and research tells me that men and women are not the same in this regard. Certainly there are excepetions, but the generality holds pretty strongly...as in, it's not even close.

@ 15, can you elaborate?

But I don't understand -- why is he a doof? What makes him so different from anyone else who finds themselves in this very common situation?

And I profoundly disagree with this statement: "If you really loved your wife, you wouldn't cheat on her."

As a matter of fact, Amy, we do at times betray the ones we love. It doesn't mean we don't love them, or have stopped loving them, or have never loved them. It means our human needs have trumped the social mores we are supposed to obey, not our feelings for another person. What an incredibly naive thing to say.

I'm not trying to defend adultery or dishonesty, I'm just saying that from an outsider's perspective, this guy deserves at least some sympathy, and certainly not outright condemnation.

@16, see my comment @6.

@15,

What research would that be pray tell? And observation? Perhaps women are better at following your advice to be discreet.

And Timothy @15, I disagree with you on this point. Women are required by our society to deny their sexuality in so many ways. We yearn just like you do, but the price we pay for cheating (and admitting it), I would argue, is worse. People still buy in to the idea that women are meant to be pure (virgins, good mothers, nurturers), while men have "needs". For a woman to be honest about her sexual hungers, she has to risk being associated with those vicious words -- whore, slut -- that cut to the heart of her value in every culture. Good women are expected to be pure, and we all know it.

I am by no means suggesting that men get off lightly (ha, pun not intended), but still.

"Perhaps women are better at following your advice to be discreet."

As always, keshmeshi nails what I am trying to say in one sentence.

Irena...it is true that women are more socialized to monogamy than are men, and I think this accounts for some if not most of the difference that I'm noting between men and women. Hard to know the distinction between nature and nurture.

But, men and women, as a general rule, do not think the same way about commitment and sexuality. Which is not to say that we don't share similar thoughts. For example, I get that women have fantasies about "other men," I just don't believe they have them (speaking very generally here) at the same rate that men have fantasies about other women.

Timothy, you keep having to admit how "generally" you're speaking, and how it's all from personal observation. If there are so many exceptions to your rule, I think it's safe to stop assuming that it is a rule.

That's the problem with personal observation: it's limited, it's unreliable, it can be tainted not only from any bias that person may have, but also by the mere fact that they're raw observations: they're not being combined with any background knowledge, they're not being conducted in a careful, organized way, etc.

Research actually tends to conclude the opposite of your observations; that the "natural" sex drives of men and women don't differ. You admit that "a lot" of the difference is socialized, so you need to know that there's a huge difference between being built for monogamy and being socialized to avoid being labeled as a slut. The former would entail that a high sex drive, or a desire for multiple partners, is excluded from their biology. The latter just implies that they hide these desires. But they still have them, and millions of cheating wives proves it.

The only difference I've ever observed is that women who sleep around are made to feel ashamed, men who sleep around are made to feel like studs. This would explain why you or I might have an easier time finding men who admit to sleeping around, or who proclaim their desire to do so more proudly. It also makes cheating less of a stigma for men than for women. It's like keshmeshi said: women are simply being more discreet. And that's due to circumstance, not due to any meaningful difference between the sexes.

Edit: in 23, I meant to say imply, not entail. whoops

So...bonefish, leaving aside socialization, are you suggesting that there's no biological difference between men and women regarding sexuality?

Not as it relates to sex drive or desire for multiple partners, no.

@6 Holding out the idea of ethical non-monogamy to this guy is a hobson's choice. The vast majority (99.9%?) of women (and men) are not prepared for a poly lifestyle. This is not a "choice" that can be brought up with any reasonable hope for a successful outcome.

I don't believe this to be the case. I am open to poly or monogamous relationships, however almost every woman I have dated has not desired exclusivity, but instead wanted an open relationship.

@27 So are you saying that my observation that women do not have a desire for multiple partners is solely a matter of their reporting falsely on this issue? Just curious. I'm 45 and the women and men that I've met over the years fall neatly into the stereotypes.

@28 That's your experience with dating. What about the serious LTRs? Do those women want open relationships?

29: Personal observation, like I said before, is unreliable. There could be a million reasons that you "observe" women and men to fall neatly into the stereotypes. Maybe you live in a very "old-fashioned" part of the country where gender roles are pretty strictly enforced. Maybe women just don't give you the details. Maybe that's just how your social circle is, so that's what you tend to see more of. Or maybe your brain classifies monogamous women and horny men as "typical," and dismisses the opposite as abnormal, regardless of how common they are. Or tons of other things; it takes a team of people conducting a carefully done study that takes different cultures, historical periods, and biological evidence into account in order to approach any certainty.

Very few of the women and men that I've met, for instance, fall neatly into those stereotypes. So it would seem to be a "tie," right? Wrong. The common existence of people who don't fall into stereotypes is proof that the stereotypes are not definitive, as Timothy suggests. Just read the post above yours, for instance. Or look at how widely sexuality and gender roles tend to vary across different cultures. If it's so ingrained, then how is it so very malleable?

Timothy @22 and kresblamania @29, I just have to say this: I am a woman in a VERY happy 13-year relationship and I have fantasies about other men every single day. Many, many times a day, in fact. I have them during sex, when he's looking at me, talking to me, all the time. If I have to say "Sorry, what was that? I was zoning out" to him, chances are I was thinking about sex with someone else.

I am madly, crazy in love with my partner, and think he's sexy as hell. Nonetheless, this is how my brain works. And compared to other women I have known, I don't think I am particularly obsessed with sex. I think I'm pretty normal.

I have never told anyone about my desires. Why would I? What do I have to gain being honest and open about this?

Finally, if I could get away with sleeping with other men without hurting my partner or feeling bad about myself, would I do it? You bet. Every single day.

@28

Most of the women I have dated have had or currently have open long term relationships.

Bonefish...I agree that studies are notoriously difficult to come by on this topic. To that point, do you have any well-done studies that support your theory?

To be clear, I'm not a neophyte on the topic. I was raised extremely religiously, left that, spent time married, spent part of that time in a polyamorous relationship, spent part of that time in an open relationship. Have 3 siblings who identify as gay...I've been immersed in this issue for a long time.

Here's how I now think of this. Take the "generaly's" as a given. Both Men and Women fantasize about "other" relationships, frequently. My current theory is that men likely have a higher frequency rate in their fantasy...but more importantly, I think men's fantasies likely score higher on an intensity scale. So, let's assume that men and women are 60/40 on the "frequency" (of fantasies) scale and 55/45 on the "intensity" scale. It may be that the differences between men and women are not large...but assuming that motivation to act on the impulse requires cresting a threshold of cultural and other pressures...a few degrees of difference between men and women, over time, may be enough to make for a meaningful difference. I think that difference exists.

Of course, I'm open to being wrong on this point, but I've found, after years and years of navigating relationships with women, that it's not helpful for me to conclude and act as though we think alike on the topic. And yes, I make adjustments for each new encounter. But, my experience is all I can ever go on, as each encounter is unique and personal; studies help me much in the moment.

I think post 1970's women's movement, we've wanted to conclude that there's no difference between men and women. I don't think that conclusion is warranted or helpful. Of course, I think men and women should be treated equally, and given equal opportunities. And, given the variables in each individual case, no single rule will ever hold.

...too much? :-)

edit" "studies don't help me much in the moment."

I think Amy was responding in the context of the question, and what she assumes other 'poly' relationships (guy trying to form a harem) are like. It wasn't the best answer, but I can't blame her auto response to the cheater...

I guess she just needs to be better educated about the subject matter?

Regarding loving more than one person... parental love and romantic love are not the same thing, but I remember being pregnant with my second child, and not being able to imagine loving a second child. I loved my first child - how could I love another child? Lo and behold... three children and I love them all - at the same time. Could I love two men at the same time? Yes. Three - sounds like a lot to me, but I bet that's possible too. There's a lot of room for love, and people are different and meet different needs, inspire many varieties of love along similar themes. Many kinds of love for different children, and different love for different men.

I'm with Sarah (37) on this one, there's room for more than one, and only one, in the heart. What you do with those feelings may vary.

@24

Timothy,

Your comments are a perfect example of taking slight differences in the averages of two widely overlapping bell curves and reporting them in a foolishly reductionist "Men are like this; women are like that" manner. You started off with, "Men give up more to be in a committed relationship." (Comment #6) Now you've come around to "SOME men give up SLIGHTLY more to be in a committed relationship."

Imagine if the third paragraph of comment 6 started like this: "To that end, I wonder if we can so easily blame men (and some women) who refuse to fly home for their mothers' funerals. Men, in general, are tall. Men give up more to fly across the country in the coach section of an airplane." Using a very slight average difference to excuse the behavior of men - and it's clearly men you're talking about, despite your wan parenthetical - makes no sense at all.

@40 InPhilly...thanks for the critique. I'm thinking it over.

To be clear, the "slight" difference in my theory holds across the vast majority of male and female. I'm not saying that a "slight" majority of men are different; I'm saying that the difference, exhibited in a large majority of men and women, is slight, but that this difference, even though only slight, makes a significant difference in feeling and behavior. Here's an analogy...water at 32º is solid and at 33º is liquid. The difference in temperature is slight, but the results can be dramatic.

Also...for those who are suggesting that there's no meaningful difference between men and women relating to sex and relationships, how do you explain the overwhelming difference in consumption of pornography? No cover charge for women at many Clubs? The overwhelming number of strip clubs for men compared to strip clubs for women?

@ 41 & 42 Timothy, I see what you mean about the "slight" difference possibly having a large effect. What I'm most concerned about isn't the size of the difference between genders, but the fact that the difference is dwarfed by the variability within each gender. Of course there are differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors between the "average" man and the "average" woman (though parsing how much of those differences come from socialization vs. biology may be impossible). But that doesn't mean that lumping people by gender when discussing sexual desires is reasonable.

I used height as an example of a trait in which there are differences between the average man and the average woman, but wide variation within each gender. (We all know lots of tall women and short men, despite the statistical averages.) I would argue that, just as "flying coach is difficult for tall people" makes a whole lot more sense than "flying coach is difficult for men," so too does "inherently polyamorous folks give up more to be in monogamous relationships" make a whole lot more sense than "men give up more to be in monogamous relationships."

@43 InPhilly...I take your point. But, still, there's enough distinction here that it is meaningful and interesting to discuss it in terms of difference between sexes. The hetero world tends to date cross-sex, so it's sort of pointless to eliminate distinction between sexes, relying only on individual characteristics. Shall we cease the labels of "men" and "women" altogether? It seems that you are pointing in that direction.

I'm not advocating some law or some exclusionary action, but to ignore the largely inherent differences between men and women just because there are exclusions to the rule seems overly pc. We men and women in the hetero world deal in this distinction nearly constantly; shall we ignore it?

Another interesting angle to this discussion would be to explore differences in practice between the lesbian and gay couples.

Any answers to my questions @42?

@44 Timothy, you and I are in agreement that there are significant differences, on average, between men and women in terms of their sexual attitudes and behaviors, leading to the trends you mentioned @42. I suspect that we both agree that those differences are attributable to some combination of social and biological factors, though I imagine that we might disagree about the balance between the social and the biological. I never meant to argue that men and women are exactly the same.

I guess I tend to take generalizations like yours personally because, as a polyamorous woman, I am one of those "exclusions to the rule" that you seem so quick to dismiss. But more importantly, I just don't see the point of making that kind of gender generalization. Even if you could show that men tend, on average, to be less inclined to monogamy than women, you still don't know anything about any particular man (like Amy's questioner) or any particular woman (like his wife). It's when you try to apply gendered generalizations to individual people (which some folks do all the time) that you get into trouble.

@45 InPhilly...but I don't dismiss you, not in any way. I look for and welcome the exceptions. I'm starved for exceptions, actually. I wish it were more common and seek it out.

Ok.... so...what if there are differences btwn men and woman. what if None of it is engrained. what if man has more of a desire or urge or fill in the blank, than woman. Or visa versa, what is the question that we are asking? is it, since man has more desire.....,or, to be fair, since woman has more desire, is loving two people right? is cheating on a spouse right? whether it is man or woman who has the most desire is irrelivent. clearly define the question without looking at it as man and woman or black and white. if your question is one of......is it right or wrong, no matter whatyou answerask yourself why. is it possible, obviously, but clearly define your question by asking why. why is it possible not is it possible. get straight to heart of the matter. and being honest with yourself always.