A Clarification About Sexual Exclusivity

Posted by: rsr

Subject tags: societysexualityrelationshiphuman behavior

on Print PDF
rsr

I recently commented on Kelly's blog and it occurs to me that my comments might not fully embody my views on the subject.  The topic involved covert infidelity and it is this subject that I want to address here.

 I should begin by acknowledging that infidelity is built into our species (see this video and this one). Everything about the dimorphic human form indicates that Homo sapiens evolved in the context of polygamous or promiscuous reproductive strategies, and if one is not convinced by comparative morphology, one need only refer to behavioral statistics. Indeed, female humans average more sexual partners per lifetime than any other animal known (owing primarily to the skew from prostitution), and it is no secret that many male humans seek as many sexual partners as possible, regardless of marital status.

As an evolutionary biologist, I accept the indisputable facts as the baseline for our species. But we are not merely sexual creatures; we are social and moral beings, too.

 I have some friends from high school who have a very successful marriage (nearly 20 years now). The secret to their success is certainly not marital fidelity; we would use the term swingers to describe their sexual lifestyle. Their success is associated more with true commitment along with initial honesty about what they expected of each other and themselves. I find much honor in the personal analysis involved in such honest departures from societal norms, though I prefer straight monogamy myself.

The problem with monogamy is that most people cannot maintain it. Those who can are actually fairly rare, but if they find each other they are quite happy being sexually exclusive. The problem is in dishonest advertising and in over-valuing the exclusiveness of one's partner while under-valuing exclusivity in oneself.

No one wants to be cuckolded, but very few people are willing to hold themselves to standards that make them deserve exclusivity from their partners. Thus they dishonestly advertise their intention or they presume that the institution of marriage will magically alter their behavior patterns. Of course, it never does.

 The problem is not infidelity. It is dishonesty. If you bill yourself as a monogamous partner, be one. The social consequences are simply too grave to justify false advertising and there are no short-term rewards that can logically justify being a covert player. Our culture needs to relax its opinion-based ban--its stigma--on honest multi-partner lifestyles. If the stigma were banished, those who wish to be monogamous would more easily find each other and those who can't manage exclusivity would be less willing to victimize others who wish to form an exclusive pair bond.

I will return to the subject of how and why some people are victimized, but I would like to leave off with this bit of philosophy:

Honor is a gift that can never be given. Nor can it be taken, yet it can be relequished by a single act. It builds in its possessor like money in a bank, and those who know how to manage it are the wealthiest of us all. There are no casinos to gamble honor away, for the moment one considers gambling with it the fortune is lost. Certainly, fortunes can be regained, but unlike the bills of monitary wealth, replenishing ones honor requires either self-forgiveness or self-delusion. Either way, one is diminished by the loss.

Trackback(0)
Comments (2)Add Comment
72
exclusivity
written by littlefaith, January 13, 2009
I'm told that since I'm mid-divorce, it is generally considered a time when I have carte blanche to do whatever I want with whomever I want without explanation and just pull a mea culpa later, as I am expected to be emotionally unavailable. But I'm seeing someone exclusively, because I don't want to hurt him, as he's made it clear that it would bother him very much if I look for other romantic company right now. It's all about expectations.

Truthfully I'd be good with the traditional Chinese model of multiple wives or a revolutionary multiple husbands or more committed partners of either sex. I just think the basic family with a mom and a dad still doesn't have enough people in it to meet the needs of raising children, taking care of sick people, older people, etc. You need at least one other able-bodied adult, and the more the merrier. The problem is everyone getting along, but I'd much prefer group living.
78
Honest
written by Kelly, January 23, 2009
I think rsr is correct in saying it all comes down to honesty. I do feel if people get married that is a bond that should make the relationship exclusive. If you are not wanting that, WHY get married. Tax break...insurance.... That is not a reason to get married in my book. Others may not agree with me and that is ok.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account.

busy