"The Case Against Monogamy" By Jenny Block
dd...@bellsouth.net
Newsweek
Jenny Block
December 10, 2009
So Tiger Woods gets caught cheating on his wife. Frankly, I'm
surprised anyone's surprised. Woods's entire life is based on winning;
on having, doing, and being more. So why on earth would anyone think
"settling down" was even in his vocabulary?
Even people who seem to have it all always seem to want more. And
people--by nature--are not monogamous. Which makes the whole argument
that "he married a supermodel, so why would he need to cheat?" just
plum aggravating. Jude Law cheated on Sienna Miller, for God's sake.
JFK cheated on Jackie. And studies show that one in three men and one
in four women will cheat on their partners at some point in their
life. Celebrity or not, cheating is human nature. Have we learned
nothing from all these scandals?
I'm not saying the cheating is OK. I'm saying it shouldn't be a
surprise. I was a cheater myself once. Three years into my marriage, I
had an affair. She was blonde and freckled and made me blush. Yes, she
was a girl--but that was beside the point; I'd been open about my
bisexuality for years. My husband, meanwhile, was crushed when I told
him--and I hated myself for not being strong enough to say no. I
figured surely this must have meant I'd married Mr. Wrong: why else
would I have the desire to step out?
As it turns out, desire is exactly what's at issue here. Human beings
desire variety. We desire multiple partners. It's a simple fact that's
built into our biology. And while some choose monogamy simply because
it feels right, I think many more of us choose it because we think
it's what we're supposed to do. You don't want to end up an old maid
or a lonely bachelor, do you?
Monogamy just isn't always realistic. There's nothing wrong with
admitting that. It simply doesn't work for some. And just as people
choose different religions, eating habits, and places to call home, I
believe we should be able to choose different ways to live out our
relationships.
Several years after my affair, my husband and I jointly decided that
monogamy just wasn't for us. We love each other and want to be
together, but monogamy is not the cornerstone of our partnership--
trust is. So we decided to open up our relationship to other people.
First we both dated the same woman. Then my husband dated her and I
saw other people. And then they broke up and I dabbled until I met a
woman who, like my husband, I cannot imagine being without. And so now
it's her and me and him and me, and we are all fabulous friends.
Everyone gets their needs met. No one feels left out or guilty, and
the only time any of us questions our lifestyle is when we let those
Disney movies come creeping back into our heads.
Let me be very clear here: I have no problem with monogamy. I think
conscious, honest, true monogamy can be a wonderful thing. What should
not be tolerated is hypocrisy--and that's where Tiger's vow of
marriage got him into trouble. If you want to be monogamous, great--
but don't think you can claim it while you sleep around. It's not fair
and, quite frankly, it's exhausting.
Monogamy is a choice. But until it's treated like one, cheating
scandals will continue to pop up and the public will continue to eat
them up. Because misery loves company. And in the end, that's the only
thing cheating will bring you.
Heidi Graw
><dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:37e08343-95c0-44e5...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> The Case Against Monogamy
> Newsweek
> Jenny Block
> December 10, 2009
>
> And
> people--by nature--are not monogamous.
(snip)
> And studies show that one in three men and one
> in four women will cheat on their partners at some point in their
> life.
This of course means 2 out of 3 men and 3 out of 4 women
can and do maintain, and perhaps even want, a monogamous relationship.
How does this translate into "by nature are not monogamous?" It appears
to me that the numbers indicate otherwise.
> If you want to be monogamous, great--
> but don't think you can claim it while you sleep around.
Fair enough. I would prefer an honest declaration. I know I'm
not willing to share my husband with anyone else and he doesn't care
to share me with another either. So, since we're both into
monogamy, we're a match. The problem occurs if one of the
two is not into monogamy.
>
> Monogamy is a choice.
If people are not monogamous "by nature", how can it
be a choice? If it was indeed "by nature," then I would
expect to see far greater numbers of cheaters.
Heidi
dd...@bellsouth.net
> ><dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:37e08343-95c0-44e5...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > The Case Against Monogamy
> > Newsweek
> > Jenny Block
> > December 10, 2009
>
> (snip)
>
> > And
> > people--by nature--are not monogamous.
>
> (snip)
>
> > And studies show that one in three men and one
> > in four women will cheat on their partners at some point in their
> > life.
>
> This of course means 2 out of 3 men and 3 out of 4 women
> can and do maintain, and perhaps even want, a monogamous relationship.
> How does this translate into "by nature are not monogamous?" It appears
> to me that the numbers indicate otherwise.
(Denise) People aren't naturally monogamous but can adopt monogamy as
a discipline just as we can adopt celibacy as a discipline. Monogamy
is an important compromise with the truth that, while monogamy isn't
natural for humans of either gender, jealousy is natural to humans of
both genders. Thus, men and women frequently restrain themselves from
acting on sexual impulses so that they will not harm their spouses and
keep their primary relationships strong and happy.
Andrew Usher
> (Denise) People aren't naturally monogamous but can adopt monogamy as
> a discipline just as we can adopt celibacy as a discipline.
First, you could always 'discipline' yourself off this newsgroup.
> Monogamy
> is an important compromise with the truth that, while monogamy isn't
> natural for humans of either gender, jealousy is natural to humans of
> both genders. Thus, men and women frequently restrain themselves from
> acting on sexual impulses so that they will not harm their spouses and
> keep their primary relationships strong and happy.
That's only a partial truth and you must know it.
This article by Ms. Block and her tedious claims about 'marriage vows'
and really just a roundabout way of saying that the women should have
the final say in whether their man can be non-monogamous. I'm willing
to guess that few women that cheat gave their men a say (in advance).
Andrew Usher
Heidi Graw
>"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:26827eb3-dd4d-4eea...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
>
> This article by Ms. Block and her tedious claims about 'marriage vows'
> and really just a roundabout way of saying that the women should have
> the final say in whether their man can be non-monogamous. I'm willing
> to guess that few women that cheat gave their men a say (in advance).
>
> Andrew Usher
Andrew, I'm wondering how *serial* monogamy factors into this
desire to step outside of a marriage.
Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
really was not the norm in the past.
And if we look at these "cheaters," what is it that appears
a common thing....the sex in the marriage wanes as the
sex outside of marriage increases. It's like a transition
period to move from one sex partner to another. In other
words, these cheaters may be looking to finding a new
monogamous relationship to replace the previous one.
Sure, this is not to say that a small minority of people
may still prefer multiple sex partners at the same time.
Yet, I'm thinking more discussion could take place regarding
serial monogamy.
Heidi
Andrew Usher
> Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
> decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
> child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
> average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
> medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
> Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
> really was not the norm in the past.
I should not have to do the math for you, but this is obviously false.
I snipped the rest of your post as it is both trivial and irrelevant
to my point.
Andrew Usher
MCP
Clearly the SMARTEST MAN ON USENET, get a grip ANDREW you are a clown!
Andrew Usher
> >> Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
> >> decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
> >> child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
> >> average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
> >> medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
> >> Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
> >> really was not the norm in the past.
> >
> > I should not have to do the math for you, but this is obviously false.
> >
> > I snipped the rest of your post as it is both trivial and irrelevant
> > to my point.
>
> Clearly the SMARTEST MAN ON USENET, get a grip ANDREW you are a clown!
Well I'm impressed. You can use ALLCAPS and yell without making a
point.
Would you say that I am wrong in criticising Heidi's point, and thus
agree with it? Then you are even more a fool. If the average length of
a marriage were 7 years due to death, then a majority of children
would lose both parents before reaching adulthood; that is not
reasonable and one can easily show that to be false. Data will show,
that the average life expectancy for people reaching adulthood was
near 60 years, and hence I would estimate, that the average length of
a first marriage until one of the partners died to be 25 to 30 years,
and I would not be very far wrong.
Now if you say that that is meaningless and nobody really cares about
the math, well then, you're just an idiot, and worse you're supporting
a woman against a man when there are no good grounds to do so.
Andrew Usher
Society
>
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>
>> Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
>> decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
>> child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
>> average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
>> medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
>> Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
>> really was not the norm in the past.
>
> I should not have to do the math for you, but this is obviously false.
You should have not been so quick to jump to conclusions,
Andrew. Lessee, the average life expectancy for a 20-year old
male in Massachusetts was 40.1 years in 1850. (Source:
<www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html> The data for
females is not given on that page, one can assume it is identical
to the male figure.) With your math skills, Andrew, you
figure this means marriages in those days weren't terribly
short. But that's only true for the _first_ marriage. Back then
folks usually remarried after the death of a spouse. So, keep
working the numbers for all those subsequent marriages too.
What was it you said about "obviously false"? (heh heh)
The figure Heidi recollects seeing seems reasonable to me.
I remember seeing a figure of 5 years for the average length
of marriages in the medieval period, plague and famine
being more common back then.
Still, this doesn't do much to bolster the argument-by-
anecdote of the bisexual swinger Ms. Block. Just because
monogamy doesn't suit a few pathological psych cases
like her out of a U.S. population of 300 million doesn't
prove that, in general, monogamy is possible and practical
for people.
--
To think on your feet you need to master the fundamentals.
alpha_ovid
Andrew Usher
> >> Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
> >> decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
> >> child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
> >> average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
> >> medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
> >> Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
> >> really was not the norm in the past.
> >
> > I should not have to do the math for you, but this is obviously false.
>
> You should have not been so quick to jump to conclusions,
> Andrew. Lessee, the average life expectancy for a 20-year old
> male in Massachusetts was 40.1 years in 1850.
You are committing one of the most frequent demographic errors.
Namely, that the life expectancy can be used as an expected age of
death. If one restricts to those men and women reaching adulthood (and
at least 1/3 of children born did not in pre-industrial Europe), one
will get a figure closer to the 60 I cited - and obviously that's the
people that could be married.
> With your math skills, Andrew, you
> figure this means marriages in those days weren't terribly
> short. But that's only true for the _first_ marriage.
Heidi's inference obviously applies to first marriages, so my
criticism of her is correct. In any case if the average length of a
_first_ marriage was 25 years, then for the average length of all
marriages to be 7 years (her figure), the average number of marriages
per person would have to be higher than 25/7 ( = 3.6), and in fact
much higher because the average length of subsequent marriages is not
zero, which is absurd.
> Back then
> folks usually remarried after the death of a spouse. So, keep
> working the numbers for all those subsequent marriages too.
> What was it you said about "obviously false"? (heh heh)
That does change the numbers slightly but I would be very surprised if
it was reduced to less than 15 years - see above. The actual figure
could be obtained by dividing the total number of married persons by
the number of marriages per year - do you have any data?
> Still, this doesn't do much to bolster the argument-by-
> anecdote of the bisexual swinger Ms. Block. Just because
> monogamy doesn't suit a few pathological psych cases
> like her out of a U.S. population of 300 million doesn't
> prove that, in general, monogamy is possible and practical
> for people.
I think you're missing a negative in that last sentence, for it to be
a true argument. Anyway, I agree that monogamy is problematic - but
that, of course, only a man can argue that convincingly.
Unfortunately, men are generally conditioned by our culture not to
express (or even think) freely about sexual matters, but to accept the
dictates of the modern feminist norm.
I have not such compunctions, at least online, so I can say that I
agree with Hugh Hefner's statement about the Tiger case: "The only
surprise is that anyone is surprised.".
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
Serial marriages due to death is certainly not in the same ballpark as
serial marriages due to divorce and/or cheating.
regards,
PolishKnight
dd...@bellsouth.net
> In article <g2jXm.58393$PH1.3920@edtnps82>,
> "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
(Denise) Serial marriages for whatever reason mean that, if there are
children from one marriage, they must adjust to a new parent. The
"Wicked Stepmother" archetype of yore was based on the fact that many
women died in childbirth and youngsters often had to adapt to a new
stepmother. This arrangement is booby-trapped as the new wife,
naturally enough, wanted household resources for her own children and
thus, might take against the children of the previous wife.
Regarding "cheating": it is important to remember that monogamy is not
a natural state for humans of either gender. Millions of years of
natural selection mean that the human male is biologically programmed
to spread seed; the human female is biologically programmed to
diversify it. However, jealousy evolved in humans of both sexes
because the human male does not want to support progeny of other men
and, as already noted, the human female does not want resources
siphoned off to the offspring of other women. Jealousy evolved for
these reasons but exists in the absence of them: witness the jealousy
often shown in lesbian relationships despite the fact that pregnancy
is not an issue in them.
Monogamy also serves many worthwhile social purposes. However, the
fact remains that it is a discipline rather than something that is
natural.
Andrew Usher
> > Andrew, I'm wondering how *serial* monogamy factors into this
> > desire to step outside of a marriage.
> >
> > Historically, people did not have marriages that lasted for
> > decades on end. People tended to die early due to disease,
> > child-birth, accidents, warfare, etc. I read long ago that the
> > average length of a marriage was around 7 years until modern
> > medicine allowed people to remain alive for much much longer.
> > Now, people are expected to remain married for decades which
> > really was not the norm in the past.
> >
> > And if we look at these "cheaters," what is it that appears
> > a common thing....the sex in the marriage wanes as the
> > sex outside of marriage increases. It's like a transition
> > period to move from one sex partner to another. In other
> > words, these cheaters may be looking to finding a new
> > monogamous relationship to replace the previous one.
> >
> > Sure, this is not to say that a small minority of people
> > may still prefer multiple sex partners at the same time.
> > Yet, I'm thinking more discussion could take place regarding
> > serial monogamy.
> >
> > Heidi
>
> Serial marriages due to death is certainly not in the same ballpark as
> serial marriages due to divorce and/or cheating.
Yeah, this is probably the more pertinent way to criticise her point
rather than me demographicv explanation. Still, just yesterday I ran
across some data that showed the median length on marriage between 15
and 20 years - exactly as I last predicted.
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
<02bc350d-2363-49a1...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:15�pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article <g2jXm.58393$PH1.3920@edtnps82>,
> > �"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >"Andrew Usher" <k over hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Denise, decades of programming has gone into the computers that have
composed both of our messages to each other. However, that doesn't mean
I can presume to apply that observation to make broad generalizations
about what you're going to post next. :-)
I think we're getting into a very abstract discussion of the notion of
what's "natural". Considering that EVERYTHING in the universe obeys the
laws of nature, what _isn't_ natural?
We can go to the dictionary (and that would be useful) but I think a
useful context is what "works". More on that in a bit.
> However, jealousy evolved in humans of both sexes
> because the human male does not want to support progeny of other men
> and, as already noted, the human female does not want resources
> siphoned off to the offspring of other women.
This could be applied to society in general which is why society has
very "unnatural" mechanisms such as policemen to patrol and ensure
people follow laws. And even the laws themselves are unnatural with
their being checks and balanced in constitutional republics (and
occasional collapses of civilizations when these balances fail.)
All that said, it "works" for humanity if the goal of people both
individually and collectively is to have sophisticated computers and
microwave food so we can write these messages to each other without
cooking and foraging for food all day. :-)
Monogamy is therefore "natural" in the sense that it's the system that
has worked best, albeit imperfectly (although the notion of "imperfect"
can also be quibbled over...)
Families that are maximumilly monogamous tend to be those whose children
are better educated and affluent compared to those that are not.
> Jealousy evolved for
> these reasons but exists in the absence of them: witness the jealousy
> often shown in lesbian relationships despite the fact that pregnancy
> is not an issue in them.
> Monogamy also serves many worthwhile social purposes. However, the
> fact remains that it is a discipline rather than something that is
> natural.
I've long said that feminism is unnatural and, most importantly,
unhealthy.
"Unnatural" things aren't necessarily bad. Hospitals engage in
unnatural means all the time to extend human life including provide
better conditions for women to give birth. But even in the hospital, as
I said, they just use more abstract notions of nature (the laws of
physics behind CAT scans, for instance) to achieve their ends.
Women's equality, however, is very unnatural AND unhealthy since it
requires draining the resources of society and even individuals to
achieve it. That is why I marvel at people's beliefs in it. But then
again. people believed in unnatural witches flying around on broomsticks
and global warming too.
regards,
PolishKnight
dd...@bellsouth.net
>
> "Unnatural" things aren't necessarily bad. Hospitals engage in
> unnatural means all the time to extend human life including provide
> better conditions for women to give birth. But even in the hospital, as
> I said, they just use more abstract notions of nature (the laws of
> physics behind CAT scans, for instance) to achieve their ends.
(Denise) This is my point precisely! What is natural is by no means
necessarily good. Human beings naturally prefer multiple sex partners
but monogamy may be best.
PolishKnight
<0d5fc4c4-3cbe-4c45...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Denise, women are experts at desiring the unnatural and even
paradoxical. My wife joked that I have a point about whether women
should have the vote or not after seeing other women ask their husband's
for a half hour which dress they should buy. :-)
There's certain things about monogamy that are desirable and at conflict
with monogamy. Have you seen the film "Up in the Air?" I won't engage
in spoilers, but in the previews it's shown that Clooney's character, a
fun playboy (so out of character for him :-) starts to fall in love with
a fellow traveler/corporate vagabond. His conflict reminds me of your
argument.
I agree with you that the sexual revolution, as it's called, helped
fulfill many men's desires to have lots of shack ups before marriage.
This is because we don't have legal prostitution. After men get it out
of their system they prefer monogamy like women do which may be why our
society is so messed up: By the time the men and women have shagged so
many others, one or both people are confused about what they, and the
other person, wants. :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
> In article
> <0d5fc4c4-3cbe-4c45...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 5:13 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <02bc350d-2363-49a1-8542-3858c7f6e...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > >
> > > "Unnatural" things aren't necessarily bad. Hospitals engage in
> > > unnatural means all the time to extend human life including provide
> > > better conditions for women to give birth. But even in the hospital, as
> > > I said, they just use more abstract notions of nature (the laws of
> > > physics behind CAT scans, for instance) to achieve their ends.
> >
> > (Denise) This is my point precisely! What is natural is by no means
> > necessarily good. Human beings naturally prefer multiple sex partners
> > but monogamy may be best.
>
> Denise, women are experts at desiring the unnatural and even
> paradoxical. My wife joked that I have a point about whether women
> should have the vote or not after seeing other women ask their husband's
> for a half hour which dress they should buy. :-)
>
> There's certain things about monogamy that are desirable and at conflict
> with monogamy.
WTF????
> Have you seen the film "Up in the Air?" I won't engage
> in spoilers, but in the previews it's shown that Clooney's character, a
> fun playboy (so out of character for him :-) starts to fall in love with
> a fellow traveler/corporate vagabond. His conflict reminds me of your
> argument.
>
> I agree with you that the sexual revolution, as it's called, helped
> fulfill many men's desires to have lots of shack ups before marriage.
> This is because we don't have legal prostitution. After men get it out
> of their system they prefer monogamy like women do which may be why our
> society is so messed up: By the time the men and women have shagged so
> many others, one or both people are confused about what they, and the
> other person, wants. :-)
LOL! That's what kids are for----they give both a lot of other
things to think about!
Mark Borgerson
dd...@bellsouth.net
>
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 5:13 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <02bc350d-2363-49a1-8542-3858c7f6e...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > "Unnatural" things aren't necessarily bad. Hospitals engage in
> > > unnatural means all the time to extend human life including provide
> > > better conditions for women to give birth. But even in the hospital, as
> > > I said, they just use more abstract notions of nature (the laws of
> > > physics behind CAT scans, for instance) to achieve their ends.
>
> > (Denise) This is my point precisely! What is natural is by no means
> > necessarily good. Human beings naturally prefer multiple sex partners
> > but monogamy may be best.
>
> Denise, women are experts at desiring the unnatural and even
> paradoxical. My wife joked that I have a point about whether women
> should have the vote or not after seeing other women ask their husband's
> for a half hour which dress they should buy. :-)
(Denise) I don't think this is really relevant to my point about
natural things not necessarily being good things. As I've pointed out
before, it is natural for human beings of both sexes to desire
multiple sexual partners. It is also possible for both men and women
to discipline themselves into being monogamous (or celibate for that
matter) because of the benefits of not giving in to all of their
desires.
I think what you saw was an attempt to make picking out clothes a kind
of foreplay by involving the husband in it. The wives also wanted to
ensure that they wore garments that their husbands find attractive.
Doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
>
> There's certain things about monogamy that are desirable and at conflict
> with monogamy. Have you seen the film "Up in the Air?" I won't engage
> in spoilers, but in the previews it's shown that Clooney's character, a
> fun playboy (so out of character for him :-) starts to fall in love with
> a fellow traveler/corporate vagabond. His conflict reminds me of your
> argument.
(Denise) Much about monogamy is good. This is why husbands and wives
often do not act on their natural desires to engage in sex with other
partners. The payoff of a happy marriage can be greater than the
temporary excitement of a sexual dalliance.
>
> I agree with you that the sexual revolution, as it's called, helped
> fulfill many men's desires to have lots of shack ups before marriage.
(Denise) I guess you're talking to someone else here. I said nothing
about this.