10 posts tagged “monogamy”

This morning while idly surfing the net, I read one woman's rant about the latest sexual brouhaha du jour; that of David Letterman being blackmailed over the many sexual dalliances he's had over the years with women he'd worked with.  In complete indignation, she ripped Letterman up one side and down the other.

She reviled him for his inability to be monogamous; that he'd been repeatedly unfaithful to his partner of 23 years.  Calling him a "creepy, perverted old man", she jeered at him for his apparent inability to "keep in in his pants".  And then she wrapped up with hand-wringing about the increasingly so-called "dying breed" of men who remain absolutely sexually faithful to their female partners who, unlike Letterman, in her opinion, were "upright, righteous, strong, moral men with integrity".

I won't take the time to address all her points here, because that isn't the main point of this post, save to say that infidelity wasn't something invented in the 1960s.   People have been struggling to adhere to monogamy ever since it was imposed on us by religion countless generations ago.

What mainly struck me as absurd and short sighted about her post was the fact that the Letterman "sextortion" news has followed directly on the heels of the latest news about Roman Polanski's arrest.

If she wanted to vent her spleen on a "creepy, perverted old man", then she need not have looked any further than Polanski, who drugged and forcibly raped a 13 year old kid, then evaded justice for over thirty years.  Polanski is the real deal when it comes to creepy, perverted old men and it's completely ludicrous to even attempt to put Letterman into the same category.

Unlike Polanski and his misguided defenders, (such as Whoopi Goldberg, who has said that Polanski did not commit "rape-rape", but "something else"), who have tried to minimize the seriousness of what he did,  Letterman has stepped up to the plate like a man and openly admitted the dalliances without trying to explain them away.  Unlike many other celebrity men who have been outed for adultery in recent years, was honest about his behavior. 

Letterman was also involved with adult women in consensual encounters; hardly the crime of the century that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it.  Polanski and his defenders, who somehow think he's special and not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, on the other hand, say something very sad about our society.

Thoughts?

With all the recent outings of politicians engaged in extramarital sex, my favorite liberal news site, Alternet, has been doing a flurry of articles relating to this subject.   In a recent article, Relax: Adultery Is Not That Big Of a Deal by Samara O'Shea, she explores the idea:

A recent article on Alternet, For Many, Marriage is Sexless, Boring, and Oppressive:Time to Rethink the Institution? by Amanda Marcotte, asks the question:

Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.

People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.

People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.

Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.

Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.

In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating monogamy.

China, in attempts to slow down their runaway population explosion, has had a regulation since the 1970s legally limiting each Chinese family to only one child.  This, combined with the traditional Chinese preference for male children and medical technology that allows people to know their child's sex before birth, has created a severely lopsided gender ratio, because of  widespread aborting of female babies.   In 2005, there were 118 boys born for every 100 girls in China, with some areas reaching an imbalance as high as 130 to 100.

With a present population of 1.3 billion, China expects to have 1.5 billion by 2033.   With current gender imbalances, China is expected to have 30 million "surplus" men of marriageable age by 2020, with no hopes of finding partners.  Despite this dilemma, China has no plans to abolish the one child per family law, as rampant overpopulation and its huge drain on resources must still be addressed.

Zhang Weiqing, director of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, has said that in an effort to reduce the gender imbalance, pre-natal gender selection would now be strictly banned.

This is a start.  Adding to this, China could embark on a nationwide educational program to combat sexism to teach its population to hold females in higher regard, perhaps with financial incentives attached.

To address the more immediate problems of having 30 million surplus single men, China could also legalize and encourage polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands), as allowing only monogamous marriages in such a population is clearly maladaptive.  If the wife in a polyandrous marriage was allowed one child per husband, this would go a long way to help normalize the sex ratio.  Additionally, polyandry is a reproductive strategy tailor-made for societies that want to both even a lopsided sex ratio, while also slowing population growth, as several men sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one women tends to limit population growth in a way that monogamous and, in particular, polygynous marriages do not.

Thoughts?

In a recent Alternet article, Are Male Fantasies of "Girl-on-Girl" Action Messing with Women's Sexuality? by Simcha, the author explores the dilemma of differing sexual fantasies and fetishes among couples and the difficulties of resolving such differences.

My comment follows below

The Author Illustrated One of The Weaknesses of Monogamy 

In monogamous relationships, a person's only partner is expected to fulfill all of their sexual needs. This is fine and dandy when both have the same fantasies or lack thereof, the same level of sex drive, and so on.

But, as is frequently the case, couples have mismatched libidos and mismatched fantasies.

And whatever solution any individual couple comes up with will leave one of the partners unsatisfied. Either one partner, usually the woman, will end up doing things she feels uncomfortable with to please her partner, or one partner, usually the man, will have to make do with repressing his fantasies and be satisfied with what he considers a truncated sex life, in order to please his partner. Both solutions suck.

Being non-monogamous, fulfilling my sexual needs isn't completely invested in a single partner, thus I would never expect any one partner to do anything she feels the slightest bit uncomfortable with. Nor do I have to go around frustrated with half a sex life, because I'm free to seek out other partners who are interested in doing things another partner may not, and vice versa. This, in turn, takes the pressure off, and I'm free to enjoy each partner for what she feels comfortable with, and vice versa.

In regards to girl-on-girl stuff, that doesn't do a thing for me. I enjoy engaging in threesomes, both FMF and MFM, but in both instances, I prefer that the two of the same sex concentrate on interacting with the one person of the opposite sex, either alternately or simultaneously, and not with one another, but your mileage may vary.

Recently, I read that the ultra-fertile Michelle Duggar gave birth to her 18th child last month. That's right, 18th. Feel free to shudder now. The Duggars are believers of the "Quiverfull" philosophy, where adherents believe that it's up to God how many children they should have.

As I contemplated how she and her horny, but clueless husband even manage to find the time, privacy, and energy to do the horizontal bop in a house bursting with so many children, my thoughts drifted back to the fairly recent raid on the FLDS ranch, then to the idea of polygyny in general. I couldn't help but make a few comparisons.

Before I proceed further, let me make it clear that my remarks about polygyny apply to the concept in general and where it is practiced between fully consenting adults and does not include the forced marriages of underage girls to old men.

In ancient times, polygyny, one man with multiple wives, often occurred in areas where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.

This is because polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.

Compared to the most fertile monogamous women, such as Michelle Duggar, a polygynous male can sire the same 18 children with, perhaps, six wives, with each woman bearing only three children each, which has to much easier on each woman's health than one woman bearing all 18. Plus each woman has five "sister wives" to help out with the child care.

Polyandry, one woman with multiple husbands, is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Today's China is a society that would be ideally suited for polyandry, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and currently has a surplus of 30 million males.

Monogamy seems to split the difference between polygyny and polyandry. It limits the reproductive capacities of men compared to polygyny, but not as much as polyandry would. As a reproductive strategy for women, there are no inherent differences for women in societies that do not need or encourage large families, as she can bear the same amount of children, regardless if she has one or multiple husbands.

But getting back to the original point of this entry, in a society that desires large families, the practical reality is much harder on monogamous women than polygynous ones (again making the disclaimer that I'm talking about polygyny between consenting adults only). It's harder on their bodies, their energy, and their time.

However, for most of us, this is a moot point, as very few people today desire such large families, nor does the world need that much population growth. And many people today desire to have no children at all and/or no wish to enter into any form of marriage. People are, or should be, able to choose whichever relationship form suits them based on personal criteria unrelated to reproductive strategy.

But I still can't help but feel sorry for Michelle Duggar, who probably hasn't had a full night's rest in 20 years.

Thoughts?

While visiting a blog, I clicked a link to another blog entitled, "How to Tell If a Guy is a Jerk". I read further and the blogger defined a "jerk" as:

"For this site a "jerk," is: a man who is not a good prospect for a long term, committed, emotionally mature, healthy, and loving relationship. While it is absolutely true that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, there are some men less cut out for a healthy relationship than others. This site is about recognizing them and finding the great men that are available for a mature partnership!"

Whoa. While I fully accept that I'm not a good prospect for a long term monogamous relationship, I don't accept that this makes me a "jerk". I especially resent this label because I'm honest and straightforward about what I want out of my relationships and I'm not trying to deceive anyone to believe otherwise.

Nor do I accept that all "healthy" and "mature" relationships MUST be a long term, committed monogamous relationship, without exception. Healthy and mature relationships take various forms and it's things such as honesty, consensuality, lack of abuse, and so on that make them so.

She also assumes that every woman wants or should want nothing else but a long term monogamous relationship. While this is indeed true for most women, it's not true of all women, as some women aren't cut out for that type of relationship any more than some men are.

And while there's nothing wrong with a blog that gives tips on how to find men who want monogamous relationships, there's no need to denigrate those of us who don't. In one entry, she refers to the belief in having sexual variety as "denigrating to women, it is degrading to men, and it is completely antithetical to a healthy and happy intimate relationship."

Bullshit. I'd not have a problem with her if she'd said that sexual variety wasn't her cup of tea; that she preferred monogamous relationships because they work better for her. I'd not have had any objections to that at all because it would have fallen under the "different strokes for different folks" principle.

Referring to the libertine male, she also said: "There are reasons why some men don't want a life-time partner. It has to do with their ancient ancestor's sexual strategy. These male stone age ancestors preferred being a sperm donor rather than investing in offspring. These sorts of guys just haven't evolved to a place where they care and respect women, or desire the beauty that comes from a long term relationship."

Again, this is full of crap. She assumes too much when she refers to nonmonogamous men as being not sufficiently "evolved" and erroneously states that such men cannot care about or respect women. And she is short-sighted to believe that "beauty" in a relationship can only come in one form and that form must be the same for everyone.

Different men have different needs and want different kinds of lives. Some want monogamous relationships and that's fine. Others of us don't, and that's fine, too. Neither one is more "evolved", healthy or mature than the other, just DIFFERENT.

And as far as "investing in offspring" goes, well, I call her a liar. I raised my son singlehandedly all the way to adulthood, without once ever having been monogamous.

I'm guessing she doesn't know many non-monogamous men; perhaps only the one who once broke her heart.

She also puts down "fast" women, telling them they don't deserve a "decent" man if they don't become more "coy", to use her words. She states: "It is unrealistic for a woman to expect a relationship with a great man unless she is doing what she can to be a good human being as well." In other words, if you're not a monogamous female, then you cannot be a "good human being".

The hell with this self-righteous judgmental bile. There are no doubt hundreds of sites out there with tips on how to find a suitable partner for a long term monogamous relationship that don't put down those who want something else, that would be more useful than this Dr Laura-esque site.

Rant over. I feel better now.

On Alternet recently, I browsed through an article, Mormon Homophobia: Up Close and Personal by Sheldon Rampton. Once again, I found myself responding to a comment that had veered off the point of the original article.

The original comment:

Individual Mormons changing is what changes the church

My sister follows Mormon doctrine to the extent that she bore 7 healthy children and is now, at age 74, grandmother to more than 20. She is the matriarch of this very large family. She is "Mrs. Mormon."

BUT she did not vote for the "Gay Marriage Ban" when it came up in Utah elections. As she expressed it, The problem in Utah is not gay marriage -- it's polygamy.

My response:

The Problem is Forced Marriage of Underage Girls, Not Polygamy, Per Se

Or should I say polygyny, because such Mormons only allow men to have more than one spouse and not the other way around as well.

It's not non-monogamous marriage that is even the problem among such Mormons. It's patriarchal, fundamentalists religion that compels underage girls to marry old men that's the problem.

It would still be as big of a problem if it was just ONE young girl being forced to marry just ONE old man.

So, the problem isn't monogamy vs non-monogamy, per se.

Indeed, the existence of polyamory, which is when both men and women may have multiple spouses, and is engaged in only by fully consenting adults shows that this is so.

Let's focus on the real root of the problem: fundamentalist patriarchal religion.

Your thoughts?

I've frequently heard the idea put forth that gay people should have equal rights to marry because they did not choose to be gay; that they were born that way and cannot choose who they love.  Whether or not this is true, I cannot say one way or the other.  However, it shouldn't matter why a person is gay; it's not something they should have to justify first before they can have the right to legal marriage

But some of the same people advocating gay marriage say that the option of legal marriage should not extend to nonmonogamous people.  Indeed, conservative pro gay marriage advocate, Jonathan Rauch has categorically stated, "Anyone who can love two women can love one of them".  In other words, he wants marriage to expand for gay people, but nonmonogamous people simply need to cut off one of their toes if the current marriage shoe doesn't fit.

Some gay people, trying desperately to be straight, have entered into heterosexual marriages, hoping this will "cure" them of homosexuality.  This, with few exceptions, never works.  Some suffer in silence with all the desperation that comes with living a lie, while others live one life publicly with their straight spouses and family while at at the same time expressing their true selves in secret.  Eventually, many cannot stand either being a martyr or living a double life, so they finally come out of the closet, disrupting the lives of all around them, such as with former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who came out four years ago and resigned his post, after living for years in a heterosexual marriage and fathering children.

Happily, however, most gay and lesbian people nowadays no longer try to deny their basic natures nor enter into unions that go against their true sexual orientation.

I submit that this should become more prevalent with those whose natures are essentially nonmonogamous.  Nonmonogamous people in monogamous marriages experience many of the same things as gay people in heterosexual marriages do: living as martyrs, or much more often, living a dishonest, double life.

Most nonmonogamous people enter into monogamous marriages.  One difference the nonmonogamous have with monogamous gays is that there isn't really much of a movement pushing for the civil rights of nonmonogamous people.  Further clouding the issue is that most NMs have not taken a good look at themselves and self identified as such. 

But make no mistake about it; there are millions of people who are more suited for honest and open nonmonogamous relationships of various types.  The high rates of adultery and multiple serial monogamous marriages leave no doubt in my mind that this is so

Such people would be happier by openly entering into nonmonogamous relationships of various types than by trying to deny their true inclinations and trying to squeeze themselves into the "one size fits all" model of monogamous marriage.  And so would their monogamous spouses and families hurt by adultery, divorce, and multiple remarriages.

With both gays and nonmonogamous people free to openly enter into relationships of their own choosing, heterosexual, monogamous marriage would finally truly be a choice for those who are actually heterosexual and/or monogamous.

Thoughts?

In the wake of the news about John Edwards having an extramarital liaison in which he may or may not have sired a child, the reaction has been entirely typical and predictable.  People on both sides of the political spectrum have responded with moralistic indignation about his fall from the monogamy bandwagon..  "Shocked", "stunned", "disappointed", "appalled"  have been some of the words people have used to express their feelings about this incident.  I use the word feelings rather than opinions quite purposely, as most of the sentiments I've read are based largely on emotion and not objective reason.

Republicans reacting to the news have taken a "see, I told you so" attitude and former Democratic supporters have denounced their former support of Edwards, with both saying that he's unfit to be President, based solely on the fact that he engaged in extramarital sex.

Oh, please.  Spare me the self-righteous indignation.  

For one thing, his marriage is a private relationship.  He's not accountable to any of us for his conduct within his marriage. I've read comments from people who say they can't  "forgive" him for this.  Excuse me?   John Edwards doesn't need any forgiveness from strangers who are not, after all, married to him.   The only person he owes any sort of explanation to is Elizabeth Edwards.  The rest of us need to butt out and tend to our own relationships according to our own consciences.

Secondly, we don't elect our presidents to uphold the sacred cow of monogamy.  For one thing, the idea that monogamous marriage is a moral issue, rather than simply a practical arrangement, comes largely from religion.  And the last time I checked, we have no religious tests for office and the separation of church and state is still in effect.

Thirdly, his adherence or lack thereof to the expectation of sexual fidelity in marriage does not affect his fitness to lead the country.  Before Obama became the Democratic nominee, I was pulling for Edwards -- and I'd still vote for him in a heartbeat.  He had the right ideas about labor, on fighting poverty, on healthcare and on middle class concerns, among other things.  The fact that he had a friend with benefits outside his marriage doesn't suddenly turn his good ideas into bad ones.

Americans have a schizophrenic relationship with sex.  On the one hand, our media bombards us constantly with images of sex 24/7.  In practice, we are a fairly hedonistic nation. Statistics show that a sizable percentage of both men and women have engaged in extramarital sex at least once. Yet, our reactions to politicians and other celebrities who are caught being human take a decidedly moralistic and hypocritical streak that betrays that our Puritan origins are still alive and well in 21st century America.

I think the Europeans have the right idea when it comes to issues of this nature.  For the most part, Europeans are realistic and practical about the private lives of their politicians, recognizing human nature for what it is and do not unrealistically expect their leaders to be saints. As long as a leader is otherwise competent, his private life is his own business. 

Throughout history, many leaders, great and not-so-great according to one's opinion, have not been strictly monogamous: Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, to name just a few off the top of my head.  Would our country have been better off if their service had been refused simply for the fact of marital infidelity?  I think not.

Edwards' only mistake in regards to responding to the public was to lie about it, though it is quite understandable considering how American society tends to respond to such incidents.  He should have learned something from Bill Clinton's experience and realized that he was only digging himself in deeper.  Personally, I think he should have responded by telling reporters that it was none of their business and it was a private matter between him and Mrs Edwards.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ isn't running for president, nor will he ever in the future.  People need to give up on the bizarre notion that a politician needs to be a saint in order to effectively lead a country.   We need to accept that anyone ever running for president will be human -- and that humans, with all their imperfections are nonetheless capable of being competent leaders.