Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 30, 2011
Celeb This Is the Second Most E-Mailed Story at the NYT
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:36 AM
Holy Mary, Dan. Congrats!
7
I've been in a poly thing for several years and I really think my favorite part about it, intellectually anyway, is the always-glaring generation gap. I think it's adorable to watch "the adults" sit there with an abacus and reason it all out when it comes so very easily to younger folk. Seeing how novel and genuinely confusing the idea of "just be honest" is to them is a treat that never really gets old. It's even more adorable the way people act like DS invented non-monogamy, or really has any ground-breaking ideas on the subject whatever. (Not meant as a diss, but yeah, these are not exactly original ideas.)
8
@ 7
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 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.
9
That's a good article! I want to share it on facebook, but I'm worried it will be seen as an invitation. ;)
11
@8, I guess I just kind of chortled a bit at phrases like "Savages' honesty ethic", etc. Just kind of made me giggle is all...the same feeling I get when people say things like "the Greeks invented logic". And I didn't intend to take away from the advocacy angle. DS definitley gets credit for helping get it all out into the mainstream.
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...
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...
13
@10 - That moment in the book had me laughing and crying at the same time, it was so sweetly done.
14
With 50% of new HIV and gonnorhea infections in King county found in gay men, less than 2% of the population, I'm not so sure I'm going to take sex and relationship advise from one. Call me crazy, it'd be like taking driving lessons from chronic DUIs.
15
@10 Fun details: the kid is straight, Dan was fully clothed throughout the interaction and, just before the smash, said "Now close your eyes and pretend I'm Hilary Swank."
16
"Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality"
Does keeping polygamy illegal and in the closet "honor the reality", Danny?
Does keeping polygamy illegal and in the closet "honor the reality", Danny?
17
"But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. "
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?
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?
18
"In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community’s tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness."
Right.....
We definitely want to take our cues on sexual behavior from the 20%HIV crowd.....
Right.....
We definitely want to take our cues on sexual behavior from the 20%HIV crowd.....
19
"But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”
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.....
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.....
21
"Some people need more than one partner, he writes,...."
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....
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....
23
"“The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.” "
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?
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?
24
Dan has cheated nine times but claims the 'mono' word to describe his relationship?
Sounds like our Danny is a closet Polygamists but won't come out.......
Sounds like our Danny is a closet Polygamists but won't come out.......
26
so if cheating nine times makes you 'monogamish' then those "christian" teens who take it in the ass really should get to claim to be abstinent virgins, don't you girls think?...
27
9 affairs in 16 years works out to less than two years between cheats.
Danny, you may have a nookie run due you soon...
Danny, you may have a nookie run due you soon...
29
Yay, my comment got "highlighted" at the NYT. I'm going to celebrate by hooking up with the first woman I meet.
30
What's with the polygamy troll?
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.
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.
32
30
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.
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.
33
As longtime member of the queer community, I've observed something about what happens when straight women model themselves on gay men, and it ain't pretty.
34
As someone who lived thru all of the heady whatever-ogomies in the sixties and seventies, my only response is, "Oh good grief, are we going to start all THAT up again?" It really didn't work out. Not that anything does, really - it's just the oldest dance in the world, and doesn't become properly organized under anyone's academic theory.
35
Now that gays can get married , they're arguing that the age-old understanding that marriage is a monogamous relationship should be scrapped
36
I am married and aware that my husband posted on 'men seeking women'
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.
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.
37
I stopped reading Dan Savage because of his position on this issue. When he encourages readers who aren't happy with their sex lives to go out and have an affair without telling their spouses, it shows a lack of respect for the other partners. I also hate the entitled attitude that goes with it -- you MUST be GGG and MUST satisfy your partner at all times, or don't be surprised if your partner screws around on you. Why do we have to give in to every impulse?
38
While I certainly don't think adultery is an automatic divorce, and anyway think everyone's marriage is their own business, I think Savage's prescription is based on a marriage of two men, and therefore flawed.
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.
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.
39
As a wife heading into year 10 of marriage making daily efforts to live up to our self written vows, I believe that every successful relationship is based on trust. If my husband was having sordid or sexual relations of any kind I wouldn't trust him as much as I do today. That trust is the foundation for intimacy and that is a very important "tool" in a long term marriage. When we hit a rough patch I can look at my husband and still think he is handsome and sexy. What's trust worth? Great sex. What's great sex worth? That natural, desirable connection when all else fails. No trust? No intimacy, no connection. Let the wandering begin. Sharing my intimacy with strangers? Never.
40
Exclusive monogamy has three purposes.
(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.
(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.
41
There once was a sexpert name Savage
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
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
42
As a person who comes from a home where both parents committed adultery during the course of their marriage I grew up weary about the institution of marriage. In addition to my own concerns, my husband also came from a home where one of his parents committed adultery. Both our parents are now divorced. The choice to get married for us- a long and careful decision- did not come solely from the love we had for each other but rather from a belief that marriage is an institution meant to make us better. Our belief in the institution gave us hope that with valiant effort we could grow in love and commitment to each other over the years. We believed that marriage and family were something greater than us.
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.
More...
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.
43
The 'Gay American Male' ethic is garbage. As I 24 year old gay man in a monogamous relationship, I suggest to every reader that what Savage construes as the gay community's "tolerance" of a wide range of partnerships and lewd behavior is simply his misunderstanding of what happens to a minority group when it is not allowed to enter into the social contracts (i.e. marriage) the majority does. When not presented with the option to get married, and all the privileges and responsibilities that go with marriage, the gay community had no means to define itself by it's best qualities -- namely, love, stability, health, and commitment to family and community.
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.
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.
44
I'm disappointed that this article did not focus more on the impact a nonmonogamous relationship has on the children. A key function of marriage and purpose of the family is to create a stable environment for children where they can grow and learn. When there is contention in the home in any degree, children feel their security is threatened. (As a side note, children will learn how to work through problems through their parent's example, but this type of relationship creates unnecessary stresses).
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.
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.
45
Just because history is filled with men who have a track record of infidelity, does not mean that we should continue down that path.
46
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).
47
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.
48
I like to think I'm open-minded (being gay myself, I'm open to the shades of gray), capable of a tough conversation and loving enough to want fulfillment for my girlfriend/wife more than I want that to be from me.
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.
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.
49
Fidelity is a learned skill, like Esperanto, tap-dancing, riding a unicyle. Not everyone can do it well, or at all. But it has its own satisfactions when and if you master it.
50
My wife and I recently celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary. We are in our mid-50s. I am making this comment after discussing the article with her. We agree that our completely monogamous sex life has never been better, more satisfying, and surprising as we continue to grow together. I think it's important to mention our politics as well as the word 'conservative' pops up in the article from time to time. We consider ourselves progressive liberals. During our marriage, we have particpated in marriage prepartion programs, most often asked to share our experiences of our sex and love lives. My wife,a lways welling with tears as she says the words, advised these young couples of the following: "Throughout your lives, you share so many things with other people; your time, your friendship, your charity. Your sex life is the one thing that belongs only to you and your partner. This intimacy, this special trust, is what separates your married relationship from all others in your lives. It is the one thing you share only with each other." I don't think I could offer a better rebuttal to Mr. Savage's position.
Sorry, Dan, we finally disagree on something.
Sorry, Dan, we finally disagree on something.
51
f you're unhappy and bored in your partnership and thinking cheating is going to help, you really aren't thinking logically. It's like having ennui and thinking cocaine would be a healthy cure for it.
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'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.
52
When we no longer live in a patriarchal society where women are stalked and abused by male partners, where women are never called sluts, where women are economically free to leave a relationship that isn't fulfilling to them and can be assured that their children will receive support from their father, then we can talk about non-monogamy as an ideal. But until I have the same earning power, the same job opportunities, and the same freedom from judgment and abuse as my husband, I am bound to my relationship in a way that my husband is not. Dan doesn't get this.
If you want healthy, egalitarian, non-monogamous relationships for men and women, then support feminism.
If you want healthy, egalitarian, non-monogamous relationships for men and women, then support feminism.
53
As an anthropologist, I'm curious where Savage gets the following: "... Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey.”
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.
More...
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.
54
my parents had an "open marriage". as the years progressed we children noticed their lack of love and affection between the two of them. when i was a young teen i asked my mother why they didn't kiss and hug like they used to when i was very young. she said the thought of his mouth on another woman sickened her. as a young adult i asked my father why he shared my mother with others. he said he'd stoped caring a long time ago, but he had tears in his eyes. kids are aware of their parents love and mine had stopped sharing a bedroom by the time i was 12.
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.
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.
55
I'm relatively young in the grand scheme of things, but I've encountered 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 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.
More...
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.
56
from the NYT comments.....
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.
More...
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.
57
I've got a piece of advice for Dan Savage: stop spewing biological essentialisms about the "nature" of men or women. For as much as I agree with his conclusions about needing a plurality of socially-supported options for committed partnerships within our culture, his anti-feminist rhetoric about what women need-- which offers a pretty overwrought rendering of sexual freedom as a male need, and "Mr. Darcy"(seriously?) as a female need-- is straight-up stupid and completely at odds with any progressive sexual political agenda. Advocating for something as important as prioritizing and verbalizing one's needs in a relationship, over and above the social script that tells us that needing anything but monogamy is wrong, is a really important political act. It's too bad Savage undermines this by basing his conclusions on ideas about the "nature" of men and women that have been consistently used by conservatives to shame people of all genders about wanting sex.
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.
More...
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.
58
On the freeway, not too long ago, I saw a pair of mockingbirds, birds that often mate for life. One, alas, had been hit by a car and was dead. Its body lay in the center of the far right lane. The dead bird's mate kept swooping down toward the body of its partner, then fluttering away as cars approached and swerved around the scene. The surviving bird was willing to risk its life to try to get to its mate.
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.
More...
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.
59
The problem with Dan Savage is that he engages in a fundamentally essentializing discourse. Foucault taught all of us that the problem was never that we don't talk about sex, but that we talk about it endlessly, and this talk is implicated in power and control. We see regularly how this plays out in Savage's columns. "Men are like this" and "straight women want that." Case in point is this gem from the article: "Doesn’t it help to know what we’re [men] really like?" Savage isn't the only one who engages in this kind of discourse, naturally, but I think it's important to note in evaluating him that he is departing from the same basis as the imagined armies of moralists he is so dead set against.
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.
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.
60
I've been married for over a decade, and not only do I love my husband with all my heart, I get butterflies in the knees and elsewhere every time we kiss. There is no one else for me - he is my prince; I adore him, and I make sure he knows it, every day. I hardly even notice other men, they just don't interest me, no matter how handsome! I'd be devastated if he cheated on me, and so would he if I did.
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.
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.
61
Mr Savage's approach would seem to hint that the road to damnation is paved with low expectations. Many relationships are violated with an occasional affair, therefore we should not have any expectations of sexual exclusivity or primacy at all? And having sexual relations outside of one's marriage never winds up having an emotional component as well which undermines it?
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.
More...
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.
62
My first marriage was one with infedilties. At first, they were secret ones - his. Then, when I wanted to have a torrid affair, I discussed the idea with my husband before anything happened. It was an informative talk. At first he was extremely upset, outraged, angry, jealous, then under duress, copt to his own numerous indiscretions.
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.
More...
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.
63
This is such a devastatingly sad article. While many relationships and marriages certainly fall short of the ideal of monogamy, the prevailing perspective of Savage's vision for marriage is one of pessimistic utilitarianism that is self focused (regardless of the encouragement to seek "what's best for both partners") and hedonistic. I understand it is difficult and sometimes impossible for couples to live up to the ideal of marriage, but Savage's prescription for that dilemma is embracing a posture of slavery to our own desires and whims, while calling it realism. Even if people often fail, I hope we continue to build our lives and relationships toward something that is bigger and better than ourselves, something that doesn't concede ground and surrender to individualized, basic, human desires that often come at great cost to others. Regardless of how moderate and cautious a tone the article takes, the lesser road is the one it is advocating. And as other commenters have mentioned before, it is one we have been down before with significant consequences to our partners and children.
64
While I agree that no one person can meet all of another person's needs, when it comes to sexually fidelity I have a different view. From the beginning of our 35 year and counting marriage, we agreed that not all our needs or desires overlapped and that we each expected the other to have friends, experiences and even occasional vacations we did not share. When we brought those separate experiences back to the marriage, we and it were enriched. But we also agreed that we drew the line at sexual fidelity and a breach of that trust would forever undermine our mutual trust. It wasn't always easy, but if it was easy it would not be of value. There have been flirtations and fantasies, but never infidelity. That bedrock, among others, continues to be why our love and trust continues to grow and we are so very grateful to have found each other. I doubt we could have consistently resisted the occasional temptations if in the moment we could have said "this won't really hurt our marriage." When we were angry or hurt for extended periods the idea of straying looked attractive. Looking back on all we have meant to each other for 35 years, neither of us regrets that we resisted those short term temptations.
65
When the author stated, "With his online flirtations and soft-porn photos, he did what a lot of us might do if we were lonely and determined to not really cheat." he made it clear that he does not believe that betraying one's spouse by engaging in an intimate (sexual and/or emotional) relationship with another person constitutes cheating. The bond of a couple is set apart from those of friends, coworkers, and strangers by its nature - physical and emotional intimacy. Penis insertion or vaginal penetration is the anticlimax in the mating dance. The excitement is bound with anticipation. A marriage is NOT a feeling, it is a commitment. Feelings are variable, a commitment is not. The soaring feeling of passion fades - it has too since humans would be unable to survive such intensity for long periods of times. Even betrayal that remains undiscovered takes its toll on the bond a couple shares since the energy invested elsewhere will not be infusing the marriage and it will suffer. If lies are used to cover up clandestine behavior, it indicates that the perpetrator wishes to continue his/her betrayal or avoid consequences. Human frailty makes us vulnerable to err, yet we learn nothing without acknowledging our actions, taking responsibility for them, and feeling remorse for the harm our behavior inflicts. So come on, he was operating outside the boundaries of faithfulness. Loneliness may propel someone to seek out others for conversation. He was seeking sexual excitement and that is self-gratification. His wife was probably waiting for him in bed. I should know, I was wanting sex with my husband while he was arousing himself via cybersex on Second Life's adult arenas. Betrayal is betrayal even if there is no bodily contact. It is cheating nevertheless.
66
As a gay man, I am glad the author of the piece did not fail to poke at the weaknesses of Dan Savage's campaign here. Dan can be great (and his "It Gets Better" campaign is one of the most effectively humane contributions of the past 20 years), but I think his thinking on this point is skewed by his sampling, as it were, and he's got both selection and confirmation bias issues in greater play than he appears to realize, for all of his qualifiers.
67
Us = the period troll, somebody get rid of them, already.
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 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.
68
Whoops. Never mind, I just read some of the non-registered comments that weren't the period troll's. Good discussion.
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.
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.
69
Funny, Savage spent the last few years telling us he was fighting for 'marriage equality'. Now it turns it, what he wanted was 'gay marriage'. You know, with bathhouse rules where when everyone gets a miserable, incurable disease they can then blame Republicans.
70
@11: There are huge advantages to dishonesty, sad to say, and they can be hard to give up. You don't have to compromise: you can have things exactly how you like, while you tell other people that things are really how they like.
Off-topic, but are there discussions of logic that predate the Greeks? I hadn't realized.
Off-topic, but are there discussions of logic that predate the Greeks? I hadn't realized.
71
The headlines I've seen linked to this article are misleading: "Monogamy destroys more lives than it saves", "Can infidelity save a marriage?" It's not monogamy that's the problem or infidelity that's the solution. Dishonesty is the problem, honesty is the solution.
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.
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.
72
I think that blasting your opinion over and over and over again in a comments forum is abusing the privilege. Someone's panties are clearly in a bunch, but that doesn't make me want to read their screed. Notice the clearly cowardly practice of inventing screennames that are one-line insults - how clever. Thank you Stranger, for collapsing those comments that are unregistered. It really helps filter out the verbal puke.
73
Comments from #57 on seem to be cut and paste jobs from the Times article's comment sections. Can repeated plagiarism result in a bannination?
75
73
cut and paste = plagiarism?
oh no!
will the entire slog staff have to ban itself?
asswipe.....
cut and paste = plagiarism?
oh no!
will the entire slog staff have to ban itself?
asswipe.....
76
72
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)
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)
79
@ 75, cut and paste IS plagiarism if the source is not given. Please enlighten me as to when the Stranger staff have copied others' writing without citing their source.
You did commit plagiarism, which I have little tolerance for. Also, kindly leave off the gratuitous insults. I don't think they add much.
You did commit plagiarism, which I have little tolerance for. Also, kindly leave off the gratuitous insults. I don't think they add much.
81
Really? What have I done to earn them? I don't recall insulting you or using profanity in your direction. Or are you using ad hominem attacks because you choose not to argue against my points of view on varying topics?
82
81
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....)
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....)
83
god, I find tiresome all the, mostly women, who find in necessary to go on about how monogamy is best in these threads.
Glad that monogamy is best for YOU.
Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to post.
Glad that monogamy is best for YOU.
Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to post.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (83) RSS