Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)

[Bloggingheads]

[sugarkang]

Props to Dan for articulating my position on the failure of monogamy. Am I the only commenter to hold this view?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Props to Dan for articulating my position on the failure of monogamy. Am I the only commenter to hold this view?

which view? the props to Dan or the failure of monogamy?

five minutes in, I don't agree much with Dan at all. I don't think he articulates the majority view but he seems to think he does.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

which view? the props to Dan or the failure of monogamy?

The failure of monogamy. Actually, I shouldn't be so harsh. I don't think it's an absolute failure, I just think it has shortcomings. First, it's biologically irrational. Second, it's patently unsustainable as life span increases. Third, it's the cause of great unhappiness.

I'm not idealistic about it. Getting rid of monogamy would have social costs, too. That's not exactly what I'd want.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

The failure of monogamy. Actually, I shouldn't be so harsh. I don't think it's an absolute failure, I just think it has shortcomings. First, it's biologically irrational. Second, it's patently unsustainable as life span increases. Third, it's the cause of great unhappiness.

I'm not idealistic about it. Getting rid of monogamy would have social costs, too. That's not exactly what I'd want.

Well, then I guess you are the type of person Dan is speaking for. And there will be costs, for sure. I guess I just don't see that Dan is saying anything revolutionary. These options have been open to people for quite a while.

Maybe what he's after is to get rid of the stigma...which isn't very consequential these days either.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, then I guess you are the type of person Dan is speaking for. And there will be costs, for sure. I guess I just don't see that Dan is saying anything revolutionary. These options have been open to people for quite a while.

Maybe what he's after is to get rid of the stigma...which isn't very consequential these days either.

It's about the hypocrisy.

The problem here is that there are two conflicting values that are both important: honesty and sexual fidelity. Dan thinks that by being honest about man's biological imperative, family breakups would be reduced. I think it's sad that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to divorce over his infidelity. What's the bigger sin? Destabilizing a family through divorce or allowing partners a bit of sexual freedom?

Ross makes very good points when he accuses Dan of naivete. I'm wary that we could lose things that we never intended to lose.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

It's about the hypocrisy.

The problem here is that there are two conflicting values that are both important: honesty and sexual fidelity. Dan thinks that by being honest about man's biological imperative, family breakups would be reduced. I think it's sad that Arnold Schwarzenegger had to divorce over his infidelity. What's the bigger sin? Destabilizing a family through divorce or allowing partners a bit of sexual freedom?

Ross makes very good points when he accuses Dan of naivete. I'm wary that we could lose things that we never intended to lose.

So I guess you think that most of the infidelity occurs on the male side. I didn't get that far into the diavlog but what I heard is that people should realize up front that it's likely that one of the partners in a marriage is going to cheat (although he dislikes that term and it wouldn't be cheating under Dan's paradigm) and it should be in the forefront of negotiations in any marriage.To have and to hold until someone else catches my eye but always know I'll be back.

Which brings me to Schwarzenegger. It is actually interesting that Shriver would divorce him. She comes from a long line of adulterers and you would think she would have been quite used to that program. I think she was embarrassed by the situation and that's unforgivable With the maid???

Of course we will lose if this becomes the norm, but I doubt it will. They tried this in the 70's, as was pointed out. It never took hold except in the counter-culture.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Props to Dan for articulating my position on the failure of monogamy. Am I the only commenter to hold this view?

Pretty sure apple held that view as well. Indeed, that's how I assumed both of you were male, despite having gender-neutral or somewhat feminine monickers. I think Wonderment also holds that view, but I might be mistaken.

I do NOT hold the view; I prefer monogamy. I suppose that makes me conservative.

I haven't heard this diavlog yet, but I hope Ross isn't representing my "side." I like Ross, but I think he has some strange ideas about marriage. I don't think his views are necessary to a general belief in monogamy.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I like Ross, but I think he has some strange ideas about marriage. I don't think his views are necessary to a general belief in monogamy.

Really? What strange ideas? Nothing weird in the diavlog, at least.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Really? What strange ideas? Nothing weird in the diavlog, at least.

That's reassuring. I haven't yet seen the diavlog. I think some of his ideas came up in a previous diavlog, but they were expressed here. There's a certain quasi-mystical idea about this, which I hoped wouldn't enter into this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op...09douthat.html

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

That's reassuring. I haven't yet seen the diavlog. I think some of his ideas came up in a previous diavlog, but they were expressed here. There's a certain quasi-mystical idea about this, which I hoped wouldn't enter into this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op...09douthat.html

I didn't find anything wrong with Ross's piece. What's the quasi-mystical idea?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I didn't find anything wrong with Ross's piece. What's the quasi-mystical idea?

There's something special about straight monogamous marriages, but it isn't any of these things that people say, leaving,..... what?

[miceelf]

Re: skepticism about monogamy:

Originally Posted by miceelf

Pretty sure apple held that view as well.

It turns out, I can't figure out how I drew this conclusion about apple. I may have inferred it from his atheism, but I can't find anything he said that would have led me to this conclusion. I have no idea who I was actually thinking of, but apologies to apple for misrepresenting his views on marriage through my faulty memory.

Originally Posted by miceelf

Re: skepticism about monogamy:



It turns out, I can't figure out how I drew this conclusion about apple. I may have inferred it from his atheism, but I can't find anything he said that would have led me to this conclusion. I have no idea who I was actually thinking of, but apologies to apple for misrepresenting his views on marriage through my faulty memory.

Nice of you. Thanks.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Props to Dan for articulating my position on the failure of monogamy. Am I the only commenter to hold this view?

Honestly - because honesty should always be the norm on a public forum (irony alert) - I would take Dan Savage's arguments for a starting point, too. But, I'm still stuck right at the beginning of this discussion where both just skated past the empirical issue. The whole discussion is in danger of collapsing into anecdote and innuendo, if we don't get hard facts in a way where we can trust what respondents tell researchers. I could recount some some of my own dramatic history with family and colleagues, but no one would tolerate those anecdotes as a theory for a second. I don't want this thread to be littered with that crap, either. I don't think most people do have a picture of human desire, relationships, etc that goes beyond anecdote and personal experience AND a heady dose of delusion.This is one topic where cold data is necessary before any charged moral debate occurs.

I'm also reminded today that the evidence that homo sapiens mated with other hominid and ape species is growing.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

This is one topic where cold data is necessary before any charged moral debate occurs.

I'm also reminded today that the evidence that homo sapiens mated with other hominid and ape species is growing.

Men have been known to mate with a broad range of species, both of animals and wanton furniture.

Mares are quite popular in certain parts of Appalachia. And men have been known to even fall in love with that special horse and let neither taboos nor oppressive laws stand in the way of making love to her a second time!

This is not an attempt to start a charged moral debate.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Men have been known to mate with a broad range of species, both of animals and wanton furniture.

Mares are quite popular in certain parts of Appalachia. And men have been known to even fall in love with that special horse and let neither taboos nor oppressive laws stand in the way of making love to her a second time!

This is not an attempt to start a charged moral debate.

And, I think this just scratches the surface of human sexuality. I think this is pertinent for a discussion of expression versus repression. I'm inclined to think both approaches are inherently dangerous.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

Honestly - because honesty should always be the norm on a public forum (irony alert) - I would take Dan Savage's arguments for a starting point, too. But, I'm still stuck right at the beginning of this discussion where both just skated past the empirical issue. The whole discussion is in danger of collapsing into anecdote and innuendo, if we don't get hard facts in a way where we can trust what respondents tell researchers. I could recount some some of my own dramatic history with family and colleagues, but no one would tolerate those anecdotes as a theory for a second. I don't want this thread to be littered with that crap, either. I don't think most people do have a picture of human desire, relationships, etc that goes beyond anecdote and personal experience AND a heady dose of delusion.This is one topic where cold data is necessary before any charged moral debate occurs.

Well said. Although to be fair, forums like this are good places for anecdotes to be offered in order to at least illuminate possibilities - especially ones we ourselves have not experienced.

[Starwatcher162536]

I got bored with this one ten minutes in. ADD generation and all that. So pardon me if this justification was mentioned; The idea of my wife being fucked by another man would drive me crazy. Literally crazy. If I'm going to ask her not to have sex with other men it seems fair for me not to have sex with other women. Isn't this where monogamy originates from for most couples?

If neither party particularly cares that their partner is having sex with other people. Go for it. I don't see anything wrong with not being monogamous if it's all in the open.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I got bored with this one ten minutes in. ADD generation and all that. So pardon me if this justification was mentioned; The idea of my wife being fucked by another man would drive me crazy. Literally crazy. If I'm going to ask her not to have sex with other men it seems fair for me not to have sex with other women. Isn't this where monogamy originates from for most couples?

If neither party particularly cares that their partner is having sex with other people. Go for it. I don't see anything wrong with not being monogamous if it's all in the open.

Then you're completely aligned with what Dan was saying.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536

I got bored with this one ten minutes in. ADD generation and all that. So pardon me if this justification was mentioned; The idea of my wife being fucked by another man would drive me crazy. Literally crazy. If I'm going to ask her not to have sex with other men it seems fair for me not to have sex with other women. Isn't this where monogamy originates from for most couples?

If neither party particularly cares that their partner is having sex with other people. Go for it. I don't see anything wrong with not being monogamous if it's all in the open.

Yeah, that's essentially my view; haven't listened to the diavlog yet. Not having sex with other people isn't even in the top five of onerous things I do to maintain my marriage. (shrug).

[Sulla the Dictator]

Ugh, I hope we don't see much more of this offensive Dan Savage character. I remember thinking as I started watching this diavlog, "Every time I've seen this guy on television he's done nothing but advocate for the most revolting, base, thralldom to appetites and senses."

About where he compares traditional marriage to chattel slavery is where I stop; and accept him as an irredeemable degenerate. Dan Savage advocates for libertine lifestyles because Dan Savage doesn't want to have to deny himself gratification. Like a child.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

About where he compares traditional marriage to chattel slavery is where I stop; and accept him as an irredeemable degenerate. Dan Savage advocates for libertine lifestyles because Dan Savage doesn't want to have to deny himself gratification. Like a child.

He's not saying that. He's saying that in the past, when women couldn't own property and marital rape was legal, marriage could be similar to chattel slavery. I think this is understating the horribleness of chattel slavery myself, but it's hardly the crazy point you're making it out to be. Would you consider Dan's comparison unfair if he singled out marriage as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

He's not saying that. He's saying that in the past, when women couldn't own property

Which is so distantly in the past it is irrelevant. Which means the matter is raised in order to slur proper marriage.

and marital rape was legal,

....and how widely practiced?

marriage could be similar to chattel slavery.

In no sense. Married women who were contemporaries of legal slavery certainly recognized the difference in their status. Those women, BTW, could still own property. Which shows how ridiculous Dan's point is. When we speak of traditional marriage, we're not talking about Medieval hamlets in the Holy Roman Empire.

Would you consider Dan's comparison unfair if he singled out marriage as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia?

Yes, it would still be inane. Saudi Arabia has a class of virtual slaves; foreign laborers who have their visas and passports held at the whim of their employers. The Koran offers women more rights than the Saudi state does to these people, and Saudi women know that.

Dan Savage, like most of the cadres of the left, simply throws bombs at culture and sees what explodes. Year Zero through robbing words and institutions of meaning, rather than guns in the street.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Dan Savage advocates for libertine lifestyles because Dan Savage doesn't want to have to deny himself gratification. Like a child.

I can understand why you might find his value system repugnant. I can even understand an argument that if enough people started accepting open relationships, a breakdown in society would result. Ross concedes that this isn't provable, but I implicitly accept it as a valid concern, not just for social conservatives, but for our entire society.

Still, do you think he is disingenuous as to the importance of honesty in a relationship and that his real motive is to seek gratification at the expense of everything else?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Still, do you think he is disingenuous as to the importance of honesty in a relationship and that his real motive is to seek gratification at the expense of everything else?

What is preventing Dan Savage and all who agree with Dan Savage from being honest? The only rub in this case is finding someone who will accept your program. This shouldn't be insurmountable but it may take a little more time to find someone to tie the slip knot with.

I guess I just don't get Dan's issue.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What is preventing Dan Savage and all who agree with Dan Savage from being honest? The only rub in this case is finding someone who will accept your program. This shouldn't be insurmountable but it may take a little more time to find someone to tie the slip knot with.

I guess I just don't get Dan's issue.

You're right that there's no issue when two people agree to a monogamish relationship upfront. However, in game theory terms, a man (I'll just use stereotypes because it's easier) must participate in the lie or he will be precluded from finding a mate. A woman will reject a suitor because he is honest about wanting a flexible arrangement 20 years down the line. She'll more likely end up with a Governator or an Anthony Weiner if she's not willing to accept men for what they really are.

This is particularly true for males in positions of power because they will always have access to women who find them desirable. The option to cheat, rather than just the desire to cheat, renders cheating more likely to happen. I'm just continuously surprised that women are surprised.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Ugh, I hope we don't see much more of this offensive Dan Savage character. I remember thinking as I started watching this diavlog, "Every time I've seen this guy on television he's done nothing but advocate for the most revolting, base, thralldom to appetites and senses."

About where he compares traditional marriage to chattel slavery is where I stop; and accept him as an irredeemable degenerate. Dan Savage advocates for libertine lifestyles because Dan Savage doesn't want to have to deny himself gratification. Like a child.

I take it a Savage vs. Marcotte pairing wouldn't appeal to you. This exactly the sort of spleen I don't want this forum to collect now. Masters and Johnson, Hite, or Kinsey...that's where I would start.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I take it a Savage vs. Marcotte pairing wouldn't appeal to you.

Pretty sure that would be boring. What is there to argue about? Savage vs. Goldberg might be more lively.

[graz]

Good matchup bhtv booker. Thanks.

Dan always has the advantage when paired with a conservative to elicit some squirming just by letting loose with the potty language. Ross did a fine job of taking it in stride. They really got to the crux of some inherent obstacles to unqualified agreement and acceptance of each others positions. Good stuff.

[Mattfugazi]

bhtv booker??? BHTV BOOKER??????

A little credit here please. I expect to get my due in Commenter Court, hopefully by the adorable Aryeh!!!

[whburgess]

As far as I could tell, the only disagreement between these two was that Savage wants to end the public perception that monogamy is the normative goal in marriage, and Ross wants to keep that public perception.
If there was any other disagreement, I missed it.

I think Ross is right that if monogamy was not the public perception of the norm in marriage that many people who would really be unhappy with non-monogamous marriage would feel pressured to enter them anyway. I think this would especially be the case with a lot of women.

As a man, I don't understand what is so difficult about monogamy. It seems to me that good sex takes team work and the longer the team is together the better the sex gets. I don't see why people find the idea of starting over with a new partner all that tempting. And particularly don't understand what is exciting about fumbling around with strangers.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by whburgess

As far as I could tell, the only disagreement between these two was that Savage wants to end the public perception that monogamy is the normative goal in marriage, and Ross wants to keep that public perception.
If there was any other disagreement, I missed it.

I think this cuts to the chase.

I think Ross is right that if monogamy was not the public perception of the norm in marriage that many people who would really be unhappy with non-monogamous marriage would feel pressured to enter them anyway. I think this would especially be the case with a lot of women.

I see where you're going, but I don't think it's the same. I think it's more like a choice between 10, 20 or 30 year home mortgages. There's always going to be some trepidation because the decision will be a big deal, no matter what.

As a man, I don't understand what is so difficult about monogamy. It seems to me that good sex takes team work and the longer the team is together the better the sex gets.

It would be nice if everyone thought this. I think this attitude is indicative of a healthy marriage and relationship.

I don't see why people find the idea of starting over with a new partner all that tempting. And particularly don't understand what is exciting about fumbling around with strangers.

I think it's the idea that sexual desire is a biological imperative. The desire is so strong that it manifests in consensual gay sex amongst otherwise heterosexual prison inmates. I'd like some data on the subject, but I don't think there are any PEW polls asking prisoners these things. Also, I've heard that we locate our military bases in areas where soldiers have access to prostitutes so that the men behave. That just makes good, practical sense to me. Perhaps video games and/or pornography have replaced the need for prostitutes. Maybe someone more involved with the military could comment.

So, Dan gives some extreme examples, but they seem valid, nonetheless. If a wife has a terminal illness and the man goes sneaking off, but fulfills his duties as a husband in other respects, how much should we condemn the guy? If we want to get real, we should talk about the choice between bad or worse. And in that scenario, I'd pick bad every time. This is also the line of reasoning I use with liberals regarding Rick Perry and McJob creation.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by whburgess

As far as I could tell, the only disagreement between these two was that Savage wants to end the public perception that monogamy is the normative goal in marriage, and Ross wants to keep that public perception.

I think that covers it, too.

I wonder of Douthat thinks this transcendence he advocates is an individual thing, or a quality all humans as social creatures share.

[unhandyandy]

Originally Posted by whburgess

As far as I could tell, the only disagreement between these two was that Savage wants to end the public perception that monogamy is the normative goal in marriage, and Ross wants to keep that public perception.
If there was any other disagreement, I missed it.

I think Ross is right that if monogamy was not the public perception of the norm in marriage that many people who would really be unhappy with non-monogamous marriage would feel pressured to enter them anyway. I think this would especially be the case with a lot of women.

Two problems with this:

The simpler and more powerful solution is to empower women not to feel pressured to do anything.

If you do want to define a social norm, how is it done? Is there some Social Norm Registry where the pundit class can issue decrees and the unwashed can turn to for enlightenment?

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by unhandyandy

Two problems with this:

The simpler and more powerful solution is to empower women not to feel pressured to do anything.

I don't think there is much else we can do to empower women. I think they're empowered. I say women would be especially pressured because I think they are less likely to dissatisfied with monogamy. If it became the norm to not be sexually monogamous in a marriage, there would be less women in ratio to men who would be happy about this.

If you do want to define a social norm, how is it done? Is there some Social Norm Registry where the pundit class can issue decrees and the unwashed can turn to for enlightenment?

No registry needed; punditing is sufficient. Popular entertainment, news, marketing, media probably influence the norm more then anything for most people. I think the church, and tradition, which used to do this, is not very influential in relation to those anymore.

[unhandyandy]

Originally Posted by whburgess

I don't think there is much else we can do to empower women. I think they're empowered.

I know women who would disagree. Women's wages still don't match men's, and women are still hugely underrepresented in some professions like the sciences.

I say women would be especially pressured because I think they are less likely to dissatisfied with monogamy. If it became the norm to not be sexually monogamous in a marriage, there would be less women in ratio to men who would be happy about this.

So that would give them the power to bargain for more congenial terms. I don't see where the pressure comes in.

No registry needed; punditing is sufficient. Popular entertainment, news, marketing, media probably influence the norm more then anything for most people. I think the church, and tradition, which used to do this, is not very influential in relation to those anymore.

Right, opiners will opine and the people will decide in the free market of ideas. As far as that goes I think Ross has already lost.

[JonIrenicus]

Originally Posted by unhandyandy

I know women who would disagree. Women's wages still don't match men's, and women are still hugely underrepresented in some professions like the sciences.

....

Just a quick point on this, just because women are underrepresented in some profession does not mean there is some outside societal/cultural force causing that.

Equal opportunity and career options does not imply equal results in terms of job interest and choice of careers. If it turns out to be the case that women just happen to choose the sciences less than other fields, is that some horrible result that needs to be normalized by society?

Not all results need to be normalized, not all differential results are the product of some malicious societal forces.

[Mattfugazi]

I largely agree that we should not complain about people following their own bliss and naturally sorting themselves into fields of study. EXCEPT for the fact that we may be missing some lowhanging fruit by assuming that young people who are not white, Asian, and male will never be as culturally uninterested in math and science. Most economists agree we need more inventive thinking and intelligent young people to go into the sciences and engineering to keep our productivity and economy growing. If there are girls out there in America's schools who have the innate talent and interest that you rightly assert are necessary, but who just don't see these fields as welcoming to them, a little nudging in the form of outreach, scholarships (if from private donors, not the government which should never discriminate against boys), and maybe single-sex afterschool tutoring could really increase the talent pool from which we're drawing. We need all the technically innovative thinking we can get these days-- it seems to be the only path an advanced economy can take to increasing prosperity.

[JonIrenicus]

This was probably the most interesting values added I have seen so far on this site, particularly because you actually had a real clash of values hashed out for an hour. EDIT: (clarification: a clash of values on a topic I have interest in)

Both Dan and Ross are good arguers of their perspective, on a personal level I am much more in agreement with Ross here. I am sympathetic to having marriage be held up as some sort of idealized relationship. My only difference with him is that I am FOR allowing gays to participate in that ideal with each other.


The idea of chucking the societal expectation of monogamy between married people makes me a little squeamish. This is of course a value judgment, and we all draw our lines in the sand somewhere.

For a real world example, I find it infinitely more ennobling that a person like say, Dana Reeve chose to remain faithful to her husband despite the fact that he was impaired.

The idea that we would be better off living in a world where that choice is seen as just the same as her choosing to engage in an open relationship seems... darker and less ... pious? oh god, I am turning into a social conservative !!!!!!

someone help me