That’s part of what I’m saying. Infidelity is as common as dirt. The vast majority of people do want exclusive relationships but half or more cheat at some pint in their lives.
Almost no one is free of experiencing infidelity from one side or another. That means that wanting monogamy’s benefits but also wanting sexual variety are not fundamentally about values. They are about being human.
So it’s a mistake in the context of this issue to think you can be looking at a person’s inner truth. What manners is how they deal with competing desires in terms of their behavior.
Why is it after all that nearly every biography of a "great " person involves stories of infidelity? Why is it that neatly all celebrities eventually get caught cheating?
It’s because infidelity is a deep component of being human at the same time that seeking exclusive relationships is a deep part of being human (if there weren’t any monogamy, there wouldn’t be any cheating–it’s two sides of the same coin). At levels of success, then, infidelity becomes a matter of opportunity.
If you aren’t Tiger Woods, then your opportunities are going to be fewer and you have a better chance of succeeding in remaining monogamous.
If you insist that inner truth be "Never even think or be tempted to cheat’, perhaps, but if I were dating a man and he was very up front: “I’d love to stick it in any woman who will have me, but if monogamy matters to you, I will observe it, because I love you”, that would not be a person I’d want to be with–not because they are bad or wrong, but because we don’t have compatible values.
For me, if it’s something big, I don’t want to be someone’s exception. “I wouldn’t normally do X, but for you” or “I wouldn’t normally be okay with X, but for you” or “I wouldn’t normally marry someone like you, but I’ll make an exception.”
These things are all putting too much tension on the relationship. It’s better when people aren’t trying to change their natures just because they want to please someone else.
Ever notice how many romantic comedies and bromances involve a man agonizing over whether to commit to a woman? almost every time, one of the concerns is “I would have to give up sleeping with other women forever.”
Now, this is a cliche, but like many cliches, this is based on a truth—people have to fight the urge to seek sexual variety, but when it comes down to it, most of us decide that we are willing to trade that for the benefits of a monogamous relationship. Many of us … most of us? … all of us? … are making this compromise, and it’s a compromise that people and couples and men and women and families benefit tremendously from.
We live in a society now in which one-on-one monogamous relationships are the norm, but that’s not true of all societies, and historically, it’s probably the case that norm was that a man with power or resources or fame or wealth could seek multiple sex partners and the women in his life would accept that or find a way to live with it. Even Hera was depicted as being unhappy with Zeus’s infidelities.
Do you think that those women were happy with that situation? Do you think that women in that situation now in societies in which men are permitted a polygamous situation are happy with it (for the most part)? The trend is that the more that society recognizes the equality of women, and the dignity of women, that polygamy or polygamous-like behavior becomes less acceptable.
The heroes of mythology all had multiple wives or at least multiple paramours. Even up to the 20th century, the politically powerful and monarchs freely kept multiple mistresses.. But, today, in our country, societal leaders have to be very careful about their public images, and that includes their propensity to seek sexual variety. The rich and powerful are made to suffer when they are exposed. Tiger Woods lost a lot of money (for a while) when his affairs were exposed.
Why? Because the social power and empowerment of women is rising in comparison with that of men and women have increased ability to insist that men—even powerful men—commit to monogamy. Women can now insist that their partners avoid infidelity, because the women now have social and economic options.
This is not because the fundamental nature of men has changed, but because the bargains they strike have changed, to the advantage of … as I said before … women, and men, and couple, and families, and so on. Our society is better exactly because men are now in the position that they must compromise—agree to monogamy for no other reason than that’s what their partners need to be happy. And that’s a good thing. That is love.
If every one woman in a happy, healthy, monogamous marriage turned to her husband and said, “Look, I know that you have done everything you can to make me happy, and that you have been faithful and good, and I want to reward you by giving you permission to have affairs.” — If such offers were sincere and honest and there was no indication that there would be a bareback — You have to realize that the vast majority of men would happily accept that gift, because it is fundamental inthe human nature to enjoy sexual variety.
So now to insist that this compromise is not good enough, and that somehow the other parter has to be not only pure of action, but also pure of thought … it’s not only oppressive, but it’s also delusional.
(1) You can’t really know what those deepest thoughts are, not even if you have a "heart-to-heart honest talk’ about it, because (a) it’s not entirely possible to speak absolutely truthfully in these situations, and (b) because of the very real need to please one’s partner, it doesn’t pay to be completely honest, even if one could, and (2) it’s an attempt to deny a basic huan characteristic—the urge to seek sexual variety and the urge to have a successful long-term relationship.
There has to be wiggle room here, if people are going to happy. That wiggle room has to come in the arena of not insisting that your partner must not be acting just to please you, but also must be pure of heart and mind.
I’m adding numbers to your quote and cutting out parts so I can respond without having to retype the quote codes.
Or maybe it’s because now men no longer automatically objectify women as their property, and relate to them as an actual person?
It’s not about purity, it’s about parity. It’s not important that they have ideal thoughts. It’s important that they are on the same page, and want reasonably the same thing from the relationship. It’s not a moral issue. I think you’d agree that there’s nothing wrong with not wanting children, but two people getting married should have similar feelings about it.
I disagree wholeheartedly with everything you say here, and speak from experience. I have found that the people who are afraid to tell the truth are the people who aren’t comfortable with their own thoughts and feelings. Some people prefer to put on a persona, or play games. That’s fine. But if you are someone who is authentic, and values authenticity in their relationship, there’s no reason not to choose to be with someone else who also values that, and there’s no reason not to expect to find other people that do.
huh?
Like Jo said, it’s fine to want to please your partner, but founding a relationship based on a sacrifice that large puts too much burden or tension on the other person. Even if you never speak of it, there is no way that it doesn’t affect the quality. What’s wrong with just picking a partner who has the same values? If you’d rather have an open marriage, then just do it. There’s no reason you have to compromise. Any way, that’s not what real compromise is, that’s more like acquiescence or resignation.
And you seem to be contradicting yourself with regards to certain things being either human nature, or specifically man or woman natured. I would suggest the former is at best a generalization and at worst a projection, while the latter is at best a generalization and at worst naive sexism.
I’ll also say that in general I think the “spirit of the law” is vastly more important than “the letter of the law”. It’s important to me that I do things because I actually have considered how I feel about it. If I’m polite, it’s because I’ve come to understand the value of respect for other people and their inherent worth, not because its the social norm or because I’m sucking up to get something. I’d rather a person be authentically rude to me than fakely nice.
No one is talking about trying to control their partner’s thoughts or changing anyone’s feelings. All I was talking about is not wanting to marry someone in the first place if that is how they feel. And most men probably do feel that way, so I’m not married. That is better to me than to be married to someone who wishes he could have sex with other people.
That doesn’t contradict anything. Changes in idealism go hand-in-hand with material, social, environmental, and economic change.
Agreeing to be monogamous in order to please your partner is being on the same page.
This is not about playing games. It is about the fundamental misconception that a person can be completely honest about something so fundamentally complicated about genetic impulses. Honesty, like monogamy, is merely a tactic to help one negotiate social interactions.
The urge to seek sexual variety and the urge to seek monogamous relationships co-exist in every person. That makes the human character fundamentally self-contradictory and, one might say, intrinsically dishonest.
Everyone sacrifices in order to build a relationship and sacrifices hard, on a daily basis. It’s your attitude toward that sacrifice that makes the difference, not the fact of the sacrifice itself.
Because the whole concept is not as solid as people pretend it is. When it comes right down to it, your values are what you do, not what you think your values are.
That’s a false choice, because very few people actually want an open marriage. What they want is an exclusive relationship. But they also want to be able to do what pleases them. That makes every relationship a compromise. Disparaging it as “acquiescence or resignation” is nothing but name-calling.
I think the entirety of human history puts the lie to this. When men have the ability to seek sexual variety, they do so. I don’t impute this characteristic to women merely because there are few examples of societies in human history in which women in general held that kind of social power. We might be seeing that in our society today and it might be revealed that women are just as likely to behave teh same way when they are in that position.
What is definitely the same between men and women is that they both want their partners to be faithful. Now, whether that happens because the individuals concede their impulses in order to build a successful relationship or because they “truly value” monogamy is quibbling.
This is what is naive. It’s society that shapes the adult. We behave teh way we do because we have learned that it tends to get us what we want. It may very well be the case that a general societal value of politeness lifts all boats. But Human behavior is an interplay between genetic instinct and societal pressure, all shaped by evolutionary selection. The idea that we are what we are because of thoughtful consideration of our feelings is a fiction.
I guess we are fundamentally at odds LOL. You seem to be projecting a very cynical perspective on all of human kind. To which all I can really say is, speak for yourself, I have a very different experience.
For those of you who have said “I want my partner to have come to the same conclusions as me” how would that work for you with someone like me, who really doesn’t care either way. You wouldn’t be my only exception, but it’s not like monogomy is some hugely important thing either. If it’s important to a future partner, it will be important to me, either way is fine. I’m not being ambivalent. It’s just, I’ve done both arrangements, and I’m fine with both arrangements.
This. I don’t expect my wife not to ever feel attracted to or have fantasies about another man, and I certainly have my own set of fantasies and passing attractions. But we were both committed to the idea of monogamy in general before we met because that is who we are, and we are most certainly committed to being sexually faithful to each other, because we value the shared trust we have far more than whatever passing pleasure we’d get from a little something on the side.
I’d be okay with that. I just wouldn’t want my husband going around always wishing he could have sex with other women and having to really struggle to stay faithful. Also, I assume you stance is that either you’re both allowed to see other people, or you’re both monogamous. The men I’ve been with who would be happy with an open relationship would only want it to be open on their side. They’d never be okay with me having sex with other men. I don’t want to have sex with other men, but the double standard bothers me a lot.
Again I feel like the SDMB has taken what most people consider a normal human dynamic and hyper-analyzed it into some bizarre conclusion.
All this talk of “genetic impulses”, “open marriages”, sexual dynamics of ancient societies and whatnot sound like so much self-serving bullshit to me.
Ideally, two people get married when they care about each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. How much can you really care about someone if you are sleeping with other people or don’t care if they sleep with other people. If you want to be in an “open relationship” or believe that marriage is some huge sacrifice, or simply don’t care that much about someone then why are you getting married?
“Romantic comedies and bromances involving a man agonizing over whether to commit to a woman” are typically not a statement about marriage or monogamy. They are coming of age films where the character has to grow up, take responsibility for his life and stop acting in a selfish and self-serving manner.
This is why I say that “if that’s what you want, then seek an open marriage” is a false position. Very few people would actually want an open marriage. So they have to come to terms with the fact that if they want the benefits of marriage, a condition of that is monogamy. The fact that they come to this conclusion doesn’t make them some kind of fundamentally dishonest person.
Yes, sure. And part of growing up is exchanging the selfish impulse to seek sexual variety for the benefits of marriage.
Why? And open marriage would mean that your spouse also gets to seek other sexual partners. That’s not something that most people are going to be comfortable with.
That’s why we don’t refer to polygamous marriages as “open marriages.” Or why we don’t refer to situations in which it is socially acceptable for men to have affairs but their spouses can’t do anything to stop them and don’t have practical options to leave so they accept it as “open marriages.”
This is what I have been saying I want: to be with someone who seeks a monogamous relationship, who sees a monogamous relationship as a preferable condition to a non-monogamous relationship. That’s not the same as being pure of heart–but it is possessing a shared value.
You seem to be making this argument that previous social structures represented the reality of human nature, and that current social structures represent an artificial restraint–that cultural shifts can’t change actual values. I think they can. I don’t think peasants 500 years ago chaffed under the idea that they had fewer rights than the upper class because they were peasants–but I people today are genuinely sensitive to classism because the idea of the inherent value of man has been adopted and embraced by our culture. The same with mutual monogamy: our culture has bought into the idea that it’s preferable, and many individual men embrace this attitude. This isn’t to say that they aren’t sometimes tempted, but that they resist that temptation not just as a trade-off to earn their partner’s security, but to fulfill their own person image of themselves.
This has not been my experience at all. I don’t remember the last time I “sacrificed hard” for my marriage. There just aren’t that many areas where what we want is different.
[/quote]
OK I missed the part where the woman would let the husband fool around willingly but not want to fool around herself. To which all I can think is, if you don’t want your partner to be able to get the same things out of the relationship, you are using them and treating them like an object. This is not love, it’s codependency. And if your relationship involves hard sacrifice on a daily basis to stay together, then you are really not that compatible, and maybe you are settling.