Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
They got his age wrong, though.
I didn't see that article treating Dan like he'd invented non-monogomy any more than they treat him like he invented homosexuality. He's a fierce, fearless advocate of both. One doesn't have to have the original idea to advocated passionately for it.
Secondly, honesty is a problem in relationship both old AND young. And, erm, in my experiences the lesser of the relationship honesty occured when I was young and ignorant.
Lastely, many poly relationships don't have it all figured out just as many monogamous relationships don't. But I am glad that you do, so kudos.
I know that people have problems with honesty, I just don't understand why...if I can't be honest with people and don't think they are consistently honest with me, I generally don't keep that around. And I know that (dis)honesty knows no age...but am I just totally whiffing on the tone of that article? I suppose since he's the 'Beliefs' columnist at NYT he has to keep that weird detached, clinical vibe that seems kind of incongruent, trying to write an backwards-gazing anthropological piece about current events. But it just struck me as something that you'd read in an issue of Time magazine from the 60's about hippies. But maybe I'm the only one who perceived it that way.
As for the rest, yeah, I'm not a good case study...I got very, very lucky through a confluence of circumstances very unlikely to be duplicated, so I'm of sort of limited use and perspective, I guess. Just lookin through my own little window...
Does keeping polygamy illegal and in the closet "honor the reality", Danny?
Danny, are you a hypocrite who wants Marriage Equality for yourself but denies it to polyamorists or a fucking liar who is too fucking cowardly to advocate a controversial position in support of a persecuted and prosecuted minority?
Right.....
We definitely want to take our cues on sexual behavior from the 20%HIV crowd.....
despair,
boredom,
lack of variety,
sexual death and
being taken for granted.....
Damn Danny- you are a true romantic, aren't you!
People actually in Love (and not deluded by it's imitator lust) usually don't associate despair, boredom and death with their relationships.
Could it be that a pretty mouth isn't a sound foundation for a relationship after all?
horrors.....
Oh Really?
Where can those people find stable legally recognized relationships, Danny?
You know, like the one you and Terri have.
Did you know adultery is illegal in some states and countries?
Cum now, Danny, don't be a selfish pig about marital bliss....
Is that a joke?
and monogamous....
Dan believes prostitution and adultery should be legal.
Why not polygamy?
Is it just straight people who make arbitrary bigoted selfish socially destructive rules about marriage, Danny?
Sounds like our Danny is a closet Polygamists but won't come out.......
she describes herself as 'petitish'.....
Danny, you may have a nookie run due you soon...
Dude, you need to put up a web page or something. Your broken-record posts don't add up to anything. Develop your philosophy, work out the details, start a website. See if anyone gives a shit.
Anyone here who might have been sympathetic has probably learned to ignore your repetitions by now. And your unrequited yearning for Dan's approval is truly pathetic.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/t…
thank you for your support, darlin'
the fight for social justice is not a popularity contest,
nor is it quick or easy.
but the arc of justice curves and weaves until eventually it blasts up the ass of bigots and haters.
on craigslist from time to time. The pain and humiliation is indescribable - this is not what I signed up for when I married. He gets to fulfill his fantasies and feeds his ego, but there is not a day I don't think about divorcing him for his selfishness. It's complex to leave someone you love for non-monogamy, but in the end this has to be at the heart of a marriage or the bond is broken. I think Dan is off base when it comes to heterosexual marriages - don't marry if you don't intend to be monogamous.
Mr. Savage makes the same mistake every man makes which is to assume that men are not made for monogamy but women somehow are. In point of fact, it is the opposite. Monogamy serves men very well. They can be assured of progeny on the ground and regular sex. Women are the ones who sacrifice evolutionary. We are designed to have a couple men (not a cast of thousands) who all think our kids are theirs and support them.
But men are not tolerant of this natural state, at all. And that is the fundamental inequity. Women are not as promiscuous because men punish us if we are. They often kill us, often maim and always leave. The idea that one of our children is not biologically theirs makes them see red. The Times had an article on this and man after man was willing to walk away from an older child they had raised because they found out the DNA results.
Mr. Savage needs to understand that the reason men had concubines and women didn't was patriarchy. Men would not permit it. They still don't. Doesn't he see the women in Burka's? Doesn't he read the bible of his cultural religion?
Until the word slut has been flensed from the language, until women are not threatened by their former partners, this kind of arrangement will always be a case of male privilege in progressive clothing.
I like and respect Mr. Savage's various work but he simply doesn't acknowledge the reality on the ground for women.
(1) Ensuring the genetic exclusivity with regard to offspring. (Not really a concern of gay folk. For straights who really care, we now have genetic testing, which was not available when the adage "it's a wise child that knows his own father" was coined.)
(2) To curb the spread of STDs. (Also should no longer really be a problem, if partners are honest and take precautions.)
(3) Intimacy.
The human animal, pretty much alone among species, conducts its sex life in private for a couple of reasons. Human mating takes a long time; predators can sneak up while you're focused on it; and humans are the only species self-conscious enough to be embarrassed about how silly and undignified they look. Sex makes us vulnerable, and we see our lovers' love as an affirmation of our unique value.
When your lover has, like Browning's unfortunate Duchess,
"a heart ... too soon made glad,
Too easily impressed: she liked whate'er
She looked on, and her looks went everywhere" ...
honesty won't compensate for that.
It's that aspect that makes monogamy and stability near inseparable for a marriage or long-term relationship.
Whom the damsels did like to ravage
He pulled it off in great style
Paying no mind in the while
And scored much higher on the average
We were honest with each other about all the parts of ourselves before we got married and even talked about adultery. But we decided to get married because of our belief in the institution not our belief in our imperfect selves.
My concern with Oppenheimer's article is the idea that because people cheat we should lessen our ideal of marriage. A similar line of logic would be: because people murder, lie, cheat, and steal we should loosen our standards for law enforcement. Marriage is an ideal. Of course people will make mistakes in it- but that is no reason to lessen the ideal.
I do not believe that every fetish that passes through our mind should be acted on. I believe monogamy requires self control. In our home we have to guard against media, pornography, and extra marital relationships. We need to talk about our struggles with fidelity and forgive each other our human weakness. I am not afraid of working on a marriage where infidelity has occurred. My fear, rather, is living in a nation where infidelity, rather than monogamy, has become synonymous with marriage.
As I New Yorker I fully intend on (one day soon) fulfilling those qualities now that I can get married. It is my sincere hope that all gay Americans will be able to the same in the near future.
Savage, you have done a tremendous amount for our community, but it is 2011, not 1991. It's time to assume the role we've longed for, and have finally been given.
What relationships need more of is generosity - and to sidestep our nation's fascination with one’s self and fulfilling all our perceived needs. A little discretion and a strong dose of familial sacrifice will improve the institution of marriage.
A few more notes:
Just because history is filled with men who have a track record of infidelity, does not mean that we should continue down that path.
I'll add my voice to this choir: Just because we have impulses does not mean we should act on them. We must consider our goals, our honor, our covenants, and the effect it will have on all parties involved (families & the other consenting adult).
Yet, as stated in the article, I see the threat of the spouse feeling inferior (to another sexual partner) will be as poison that will cripple a marriage.
One final thought: This is a practice that appeals to the senses, but has devastating consequences for the practioners. Ten years in the future, I seriously doubt that a substantial percentage of these relationships will still exist. It is a short term solution that will yield few stronger marriages.
But, all that said, the idea of anything but monogamy in my relationships feels wrong, and an affront that everything I believe about love and union. (If it's relevant, I'm female)
Savage calls for some other attribute besides sexual fidelity to be the lifeblood of a marriage. But sexual fidelity is surely *the definition* of marriage that distinguishes it from, say, your best friendship, or a long-term casual relationship. Each to his own, and full respect to other couples. But to my relationships I bring this unshakable feeling: if you can't subscribe to that definition, don't call it marriage. At least, don't call it marriage with me.
Sorry, Dan, we finally disagree on something.
If you're bored, you're not advancing, you're not trying hard enough. Boredom is a trap of your own mind. There is so much to marriage and the marital relationship that is not humdrum.
If yours is humdrum and boring, then you're not doing it right and you should figure out how to be happily married. Because people cheat for reasons related to self-esteem, I've observed. They don't have a sense of self and seem to be trying to find it between someone else's legs. As any Penn State Tri-Delta sorority sister can tell you, you're not going to find it there.
If you want healthy, egalitarian, non-monogamous relationships for men and women, then support feminism.
Besides his foundational hostility toward a subset of 70's feminist theory, Savage slips in a false premise as a given, and Oppenheimer buys it. There is no evidence men universally have sought extra-relational sex. Savage, like some of the sociologists that Oppenheimer quotes, mushes up historical behaviors correlated to class, social structure, and status, with some dubious evolutionary psychology, to infer hardwired predispositions. In a nutshell, the tired argument is that we males make a lot more sperm than you women make ova, therefore we have a Darwinian drive to spread that sperm as far and wide as we can. It's in our genes to cheat. Let's go look at some fish to prove it. Or see how many spouses in Seattle stray.
Fish and straying spouses aside, a great deal of empirical data shows this theory at best marginally relevant to humans. We became who we are largely because our slow developing, big brained infants require unique parental investment. The sexes bond and collaborate. Savage may discount the importance of offspring to social forms, but Darwin did not. Non-monogamous species show marked physical differences between sexes. Male baboons are 50% larger than females. By contrast, species that flourish through more equal investment in offspring show little sexual dimorphism. Sparrows or Gibbons come to mind. Humans fall on the avian end, around 8%. And it's been dropping for 6 million years.
Finally, Savage ignores the interplay of biology and culture. If culture, through norms and laws, can maximize childrens' viabilities, selection against maladaptive predispositions relaxes. If, like Savage, you don't seek children, or if you believe women only care if you cheat because they've been brainwashed, no matter.
my dad recently passed away. no one really knew quite what to say to the grieving widow having witnessed the marriage. my parents cheated and robbed themselves of true intimacy in their own marriage. some of my siblings have made successful(thus far)marriages, and some have not made it with one spouse. we talk freely between ourselves; no one wanted a marriage like the one dear old mom and dad had.
1: to have a happy, lasting relationship it's best if both people feel lucky to be with one another. I considered it overly simplistic at the time, but I've come to see that there's a certain wisdom to the balance implied by that. The person who has the "upper hand" may not even realize how much the other person is compromising themselves to stay with them, and this is not a long term plan.
2: a threesome is usually the beginning of the end for a formerly monogamous relationship. I've had a surprising number of opportunities to do so in my life while in a relationship, and I've turned them all down because I actually cared about the women I was with and had seen the fallout the opposite decision causes. Whoever first pushes for it, one person is often substantially more hurt after it. And for that person, it can shatter whatever trust the relationship had left.
3: an open relationship is rarely desired equally by *both* people in it. See point number one.
So to Dan Savage, I believe heavily in honesty in relationships, romantic or otherwise. I respect that part of your advice. But I also think that this advice sound like the kind that can only be followed by the dominant partner in an unbalanced relationship. Are you sure that you haven't been acting out these principles simple because you've had a partner that let you? Would you be okay if you were deeply in love with someone who told you, "You just don't do it for me sexually, but I'll marry you"?
I don't think most relationships start off balanced, but one balances a relationship through exploration and compromise. In the case of the dominant partner that often means being honest about but reigning in your impulses even if you think you can get away with it.
A few bits of relationship advice that have served me well-
1: to have a happy, lasting relationship it's best if both people feel lucky to be with one another. I considered it overly simplistic at the time, but I've come to see that there's a certain wisdom to the balance implied by that. The person who has the "upper hand" may not even realize how much the other person is compromising themselves to stay with them, and this is not a long term plan.
2: a threesome is usually the beginning of the end for a formerly monogamous relationship. I've had a surprising number of opportunities to do so in my life while in a relationship, and I've seen the fallout the decision to go threeway causes. Whoever first pushes for it, one person is often substantially more hurt after it. And for that person, it can shatter whatever trust the relationship had left.
3: an open relationship is rarely desired equally by *both* people in it. See point number one.
So to Dan Savage, I believe heavily in honesty in relationships, romantic or otherwise. I respect that part of your advice. But I also think that this advice sound like the kind that can only be followed by the dominant partner in an unbalanced relationship. Are you sure that you haven't been acting out these principles simple because you've had a partner who was afraid not to let you? Would you be okay if you were deeply in love with someone who told you, "You just don't do it for me sexually, but I'll marry you"?
I don't think most relationships start off balanced, but one balances a relationship through exploration and compromise. In the case of the dominant partner that often means being honest about but reigning in your impulses even if you think you can get away with it.
I *do* think that mainstream relationship culture (monogamy, marriage, etc) could learn something from queer communities, but I don't think that the communities from whom they need to learn are the exclusively gay male communities that Savage describes in sweepingly general detail. I am part of a queer community of people of *all* genders (and yes, Dan, that comment *was* transphobic) that privileges being honest about our sexual needs over social scripts for what our relationships would look like, in which we make choices about whether to be monogamous or open, and how to practice each of these things in a way that is right for us. We do this, in part, in the name of subverting precisely the kinds of "shoulds" that makes being gay hard in the first place: how relationships "should" to work, what people of various genders or sexuality "should" do in them or out of them, and above all, what we "should" get out of them. We need to keep questioning without re-inscribing oppressive ways of thinking.
Though members of the animal kingdom have their unconventional relationships, too, many (from wolves to swans to whales) are known to bond very strongly and stay together for life. That other critters in the animal kingdom stay so bonded without the stricture of religious indoctrination and cultural tradition is testament to the power of being bonded itself.
It's only in recent times that humans could live completely alone (think now of those who die alone and whose bodies aren't found for weeks even years) without the aid and comfort of others. Focusing on abstract terms (monogamy, fidelity, adultery) distracts us from what so many people want: the knowledge that they are truly and deeply loved; so much so, that their beloved will not leave or harm them because of the depth of their empathy and concern.
I think the unhappiness that we see in relationships today is often more a matter of a loss of empathetic humanity, a loss of the ability to love and care deeply for others. Those who know how to love are more likely to take the time to find someone with whom they are well-matched. Once they are matched, they are more likely to be better at communicating their wants and needs. Also, they are more likely to be mature enough to consider their partner's feelings as carefully as they consider their own.
Our culture's loss of empathy is perhaps the greatest threat to the happiness and endurance of close relationships.
Moral of the story: Savage may have done some good activism, but don't dare suggest his column is in any way progressive or liberatory.
Marriage, like any long-term relationship, doesn't just flourish on its own. It's like a plant that must be tended to every day. So many people get married when things are still "exciting" and they don't have to put effort into the relationship. When kids and the routine of the daily grind sets in the relationship/marriage WILL suffer if no effort is put into maintaining the love, excitement, and that special feeling we had that made most of us want to get married in the first place. For example, time must be carved out (daily, preferably, in my opinion - one a day keeps the doldrums away)for sex, it must be a priority. So must date nights and other special occasions, just for the partners.
William Doherty, professor of family & marriage counseling at the U of M has written about how we have come to view marriage with the eyes of a consumer - the "consumer culture tells us that we are all entitled to an exciting marriage and great sex, and if we don't get both we feel we're being deprived of human rights. What once was considered 'weakness of the flesh' we now consider basic human rights." And if we don't get exactly what we want, instead of trying to fix or better what we already have, we -like the good consumers we are - just throw it out and "buy" a new one.
People have the wrong understanding of moral codes. Christianity, for one, despite its supposed moral inflexibility, never posits that one will always do what is right. In fact, it is based upon the belief that human fallibility is the basis for our relationship with God and each other. We all fail repeatedly.
But that does not obviate the value of a moral code. Attempting to live within a moral code makes us better individuals, even knowing that we will fail to do so often enough. Mr Savage would have us simply accept that we will fail, so why bother trying. At what time does such thinking succumb to simple rationalizing away selfish, cruel, and destructive behavior?
I wouldn't presume to prescribe how anyone else's relationship should work. If both parties make certain compromises and tacit understandings and that works for them, who am I to judge. But somehow I think our culture has become trapped in an expectation of eternal youthfulness and endless possibilities, wherein there will always be another person out there for us, so why commit totally to anyone else? Yet, were everyone to fail to commit totally to a partner, can there be any real expectation of anyone committing totally to us?
The basis for monogamy is to reduce the possible obstacles preventing us from being committed to one other individual, with the underlying premise being that sex is an intimate, personal matter. The only way Mr Savage's mindset works is if sex is just another physical function without an emotional component, something which is highly doubtful especially for women, as recent research has shown.
We then embarked on our open marriage, scorned by most of our friends and family, some of whom I absolutely knew were having secret affairs of their own. My own mother posited that it was better to cheat and lie rather than shake the foundations of the institution of marriage.
As the instigator of the open relationship, and as a woman, I was villified more thorougly than my husband. At that time I couldn't have cared less. I was flying high and we were both getting what we wanted.
So what about everyone else? The kids hated what we were doing. Their parents were not normal like everyone elses. My son swore that when he grew up, he would not have that kind of marriage. Our friends hated that we were "out". It reflected poorly on their own secret lives and yearnings.
Our various lovers were variously affected by the sharing. Some were heartbroken. Some became stalkers. Some loved the arrangement.
Eventually, it became apparant that one of us wanted this arrangement more than the other (me) and the invevitable slide to separation and divorce ensued.
I now am happily married for twenty years to a wonderful man in a completely monogamous relationship. Old lovers, especially that first one, have popped around from time to time but I have rebuffed them. They were part of a wild and wonderful time in my life but they had no place in my new life with my new husband.
Regrets? Of course. I regret that my children were outed. They didn't need that complication in their life. I regret that my first husband was hurt. That's it. Lovers took their chances. Everyone else can take a flying leap.
I read the first buncha unregistered comments. They're all likely the same, skippin' 'em.
This has prompted some good discussion on my FB page - http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?st… - & I'm unsurprised at the comments there, some folks = marriage = monogamy & they're pretty strident about it. Other commentors, who I know practice monogamy, were surprisingly open-minded about the concept.
Hey Dan, congrats on the Times piece, it's very thorough. Go, team monogamish.
I don't think the thrust of the interview was, an open marriage will work for just anyone. My take-away was, some people are monogamous, & some people are not. It'd be great if there was more honest discussion between couples, hopefully before marriage, to ensure that both halves of the couple are on the same page. The divorce rate would lead one to believe that the model of marriage we have now isn't working.
The first man I lived with, I walked in on cheating on me w/ someone else. I would have far rather had a painful discussion beforehand than the humiliation of that afterwards.
Off-topic, but are there discussions of logic that predate the Greeks? I hadn't realized.
I've been with the same guy for 5 years, married for 2, and have no desire to sleep with anyone else. Sure there are other people out there I think are attractive, but I'd rather have sex with the guy I love. Maybe that will change 10 years down the line, but right now, I only want him. I know he's attracted to a lot more people than I am and is more able to separate sex from emotion and intimacy than me, so we'll see what happens. I'd be willing to open up the marriage in the future if that's what he feels he needs to be happy.
cut and paste = plagiarism?
oh no!
will the entire slog staff have to ban itself?
asswipe.....
you're new here, aren't you sweetie...
perhaps you spend too much time abusing yourself.
33-66 are the "recommended" comments from the NYT article.
over 30 good progressive liberal NYT readers who think Dan is full of shit.
(what good is it for the comments to be collapsed if you're going to peek?
have some self restraint, you pathetic wank)
let's try again...
insert your favorite one-line INSULT. (up your fat ass....)
you know who this is directed towards.
You did commit plagiarism, which I have little tolerance for. Also, kindly leave off the gratuitous insults. I don't think they add much.
now now they're not gratuitous
you've earned them
we didn't see any points of view, just whining about banning other commenters.
we have little tolerance for assholes who want to stifle the exchange of ideas.
fuck you.
(ps.
this is slog.
you must use Fuck in every other sentence or Danny cannot understand what you are saying. just saying....)
Glad that monogamy is best for YOU.
Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to post.