Savage makes a big deal out of how “unnatural” monogamy is for human beings (complete with references to the recent book “Sex at Dawn” and other arguments in that vein), and as I’ve said before I completely agree with him. The ideal of monogamy is a fragile achievement of civilized life, not something that’s written in our glands and genes. But Savage doesn’t have the courage of his convictions: He wants to use evidence from human pre-history to argue against the plausibility and practicality of the monogamous ideal, but he would never dream of actually arguing for a return to the “natural” state of human sexual relations, with all that it entails in terms of polygamy, sexual violence and the subjugation of women.
I'm not arguing against the "monogamous ideal," per se, or civilization. I'm a big fan of civilization; natural states are often overrated. And I'm certainly not in favor of a return to the kind of biblical family values that Ross cites (polygamy, sexual violence, the subjugation of women, etc.). I'm also not arguing—nor have I ever argued—that everyone, everywhere would be happier or better off in non-monogamous relationships. (Although it would be nice if the monogamists/monogamusts could bring themselves to acknowledge that monogamish relationships work just fine for lots of people.) All I'm arguing for is a little realism, the kind of case-by-case accommodations that can salvage a marriage (permission to see a pro-dom, for instance), and some recognition of human frailty and fallibility.
Monogamy isn't natural, as Ross concedes, and monogamy has its advantages, as I've long conceded. (And it's a point I'm quoted conceding in the NYT magazine piece we're arguing about.) Monogamy is both plausible (monogamy happens) and practical (it's serves us well on the disease and paternity fronts). But as divorce court reporters and Us Magazine staffers document week after depressing week, many people fall short in their efforts to honor the monogamous ideal. Because monogamy is hard, because it's a struggle, because it's not natural. And I think we could save many marriages—particularly monogamous marriages that have been touched by infidelity—if we encouraged people to hold these two not-so-contradictory thoughts in their heads at once: the importance of monogamy (for many) and the difficulties of monogamy (for most). If someone makes a monogamous commitment and fucks up, I believe the wronged party is likelier to forgive the betrayal if the wronged party understands that monogamy is hard, that screwing someone else doesn't mean a person is no longer in love with his or her spouse, and if the cheated were encouraged to give cheaters some credit for time served.
Back to Ross:
Like any sane person, he recognizes the benefits of civilization’s restraint of sexual desire (and particularly male sexual desire); he just thinks every marriage should be a miniature civilization unto itself, constraining eros in a web of rules and regulations that are particular to the couple in question.
It's always nice to see my sanity affirmed. But the nightmare scenario Ross fears is upon us: married couples are free to make up their own rules about eros and everything else. We can make all the assumptions we like about other people's marriages—they're sexually exclusive, they're about child rearing, "God is in the mix"—but other married couples aren't bound or constrained by our assumptions. They're free to do what, and who, they want.