But I support couples who choose to be monogamous. It’s an unnatural lifestyle, and it’s definitely choice I wouldn’t make, but I don’t believe that couples who make the choice to be monogamous should be discriminated against in any way. They should be allowed to have children and adopt, for instance. I’d even go so far as to say that monogamous couples should be allowed to marry—legally marry—even though adultery rates and divorce statistics demonstrate that making sexual exclusivity a defining characteristic of marriage is destabilizing and often leads to divorce. And divorce is bad for children born to monogamous couples, married or not.
These thoughts—concessions, really, to an increasingly visible and politically assertive monogamous community—were prompted by an atypically fair and balanced article on the subject of monogamy that appeared on CNN’s website earlier this week. “Is Monogamy Realistic?” The answer, according to the experts quoted, was “NO.”
“It’s realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language,” said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.
Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, “It’s within the realm of human potential, but it’s not easy.”
Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of “Strange Bedfellows” and “The Myth of Monogamy,” said serial monogamy may be more realistic—a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.
I would argue that serial monogamy also has its limitations: a strictly monogamous couple that might be great together and doing a great job raising kids may be prompted by sexual boredom or alienation—a circumstance that could be temporary—to part ways in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. A little leeway, a discreet sumpun on the side now and then, could help countless otherwise solid marriages survive a sexually fallow period.
Those quibbles aside, A. Pawlowki’s article was remarkable for its willingness to tell CNN readers—many of whom have succumbed to the PC monogamy police—the truth about monogamy: human beings aren’t naturally monogamous and monogamy is a struggle and many marriages crack under the strain of a monogamous commitment. It was a levelheaded, bracing piece of reporting—it was almost brave. I say “almost brave” because Pawlowski chickened out at the last minute and gave the final few graphs of his piece over to the rantings of one of those monoganazis who wants to shove her unnatural lifestyle down all of our throats:
Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. “People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner,” Kaslow said.
It’s sad that monogamists can only defend their unnatural lifestyle choices by tearing down those of us who are in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships. Monogamy is great, Ms. Kaslow asserts, because people in monogamous relationships feel safe and can trust and depend on their spouses. The implication, of course, is that people in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships don’t feel safe and can’t trust or depend on our spouses. Well, Ms. Kaslow, I feel safer in my honestly non-monogamous relationship than Jenny Sanford had a right to feel in her dishonestly “monogamous” relationship; my honest non-monogamous husband is more trustworthy than Elizabeth Edwards’ “monogamous” husband; and my non-monogamous husband has certainly proven himself to be more dependable than Suzanne Craig’s “monogamous” husband.
Again, I’m all for equal marriage rights for people who make monogamous commitments, despite their terrible track record. But the monogamous have to find a way to discuss their unnatural lifestyle choices that doesn’t amount to an attack on those who made a more natural choice.
Dan,
Let me personally thank you for once again reiterating your very sensible views. It warms my heart to know I’m not the only one who thinks these things.
I personally have no qualms doing things, or thinking things, or cooking food in things, or wearing things that are “un-natural”. Anyone who does (Dan) is a prude.
Thankfully, I only read a few words of this nonsense. Young people who may have stumbled onto this rubbish, take heart! There are monogamous people out there! Only the cheaters want you to believe everyone cheats. That is what makes them feel better about their wrong choices. We took a vow and we’re gonna keep it. Is it hard? Frankly, no! Our lives are very full, and we have many responsibilities. We’re not about to complicate our lives seeking greener pastures and pipe dreams that only end is a pile of heartache for many people. That is another mainstream lie–“It doesn’t hurt anyone.” Those who engage in this kind of behavior only care about their own satisfaction first. I’ve heard that kind of reasoning from pedophiles–I’m just doing this for my own sexual gratification! I’m going to leave that kind of impulsive, mindless behavior to them and my dog. In the meantime, I love and am very thankful for an extremely satisfying, peaceful monogamous marriage. By the way, I married someone that I knew would be faithful to me and he did the same. You’ll say, “You can’t know.” I disagree. (34 years and counting)
World Peace isn’t Realistic.
Despite our best
efforts
and hopes
and aspirations
Wars happen.
Obviously
it is a waste of
energy
and effort
and hope
to strive for World Peace.
We should just invade
every country in the world
and get it over with.
Let’s start with Iraq.
Dan- Here is where I have a problem with your position: here you are celebrating the fact that you would never choose monogamy for yourself because it is not natural. Yet in other posts you like to insert little musings about your husband and your kids and your cute little family life—all as a means of harping on the need for same-sex marriage!
This is the attitude that lets bigots tarnish the movement. What do the kiddies think when Daddy1 or Daddy2 goes out for his separate trick? Or if suddenly there’s a strange naked guy sleeping in Daddys’ bed? How do you keep that area hidden from your children?
I just don’t buy the “sexual need” thing when it comes to not being monogamous. Your husband not in the mood to put out? Go maturbate with a porno or something. It seems to me that people who can’t restrain themselves sexually in a relationship either (1) have not married the right person; they “settled” instead of waiting for the right one; or (2) have simply not grown up.
Want to have free and open sex? Fine do it while being single, or if you do find a partner who likes the same thing, live and let live but don’t call it marriage and certainly don’t bring kids into it and call it a family.
Dan, I really respected you until I read this article.
I am not sure if you were meaning to attack monogamous people, but that is how I interpreted it.
I have no problem with any kind of relationship between two or more consenting adults. I have no problem with asexuality, either. I think that polyamory and open relationships are great choices for some people.
But I am monogamous. I believe this is primarily because I am a very jealous person, and because open/poly relationships just don’t appeal to me, at least not at this point in my life.
I feel quite attacked by this article. I have NOTHING against polyamory, but when someone in a poly/open relationship (I believe you’re in an open relationship yourself, Dan), attacks you for choosing to do something other than what they have chosen for themselves, it becomes a pretty fucking big problem.
I do not care if my relationships are ‘unnatural’. That word means nothing to me. As a lot of the other posters have stated, rape is common in the animal kingdom. Therefore it is natural. Does this mean we should accept it? The ‘natural vs unnatural’ argument is a red herring.
I don’t know what the fuck your problem is, Dan. It’s none of your fucking business what other people want to do in THEIR consensual relationships. Had someone called in with a dilemma involving a partner cheating, you could have gone off about the benefits of open relationships. And I’m sure you have in the past- I listen to the podcast quite frequently. But this is a seemingly unprovoked (by most of your audience, I like to think) attack on people whose relationships are NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
It’s sort of like the fundamentalist Christians who randomly attack gays. Guess what? You’re no better than them.
OH FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE! HAVE YOU ALL LOST YOUR MINDS!!!!!?????
For all of you who are insulted or attacked that Dan is preaching nonmonogamy as the only natural lifestyle, please look at comment #16 very carefully.
Dan is using a rhetorical device. He is comparing the assertion that gays can’t marry because it’s an “unnatural lifestyle” to the “unnaturalness” of monogamy. For the purposes of his argument, he says, “Hey! Monogamy is unnatural, but I’m open-minded. Let them have equal rights, no matter how unnatural their sexual life is.” Read Dan’s post again.
Get it now? This is called a reductio ad absurdum. Google it. It is an ancient form of logical discourse. You are allowed to attack his argument based on whether you think he does it well or poorly, as 16 does (and I disagree with 16, I think it’s VERY well done), but if you insist on being literal, you are merely exposing yourself as…….obtuse.
Excuse me, I gotta go bang my head on the wall.
Sheesh!
#108, welcome to every goddamn comment thread on every site on the Internet.
On average, half of the posts in every single thread will not be worth reading, either because of their horrid grammar and syntax, or because the commenter betrays the reading comprehension of a third grader.
All of which will cause you to wonder if you’re actually getting dumber while scanning the thread, hoping to stumble upon Uriel, Matt from Denver, Catalina, Sargon, or Urgutha Forka.
At least here on Slog we have filters.
Thanks Jade, I feel better now. Damn! What a time for Uriel to be writing a novel!