Cultural hypocrisy
So yesterday I had a chat with a friend about relationships, and as seems to be natural these days with anyone who knows my marriage is open, it turned to the whole issue of sexual fidelity and the yuck factor.
That is, when you speak to people, no matter how open-minded they want to appear, by and large it comes down to sex. Specifically, the question of how can you stand your spouse having sex with someone else? this seems to, by a large margin, be the number one reason for all the inevitable judgment.
So as we were going through this for the umpteenth time (for me anyway), I remembered something my wife said a few months back about a theoretical scenario that seems to put this question into focus. It goes more or less like this: say that two folks are married for 10 years, then suddenly the wife is involved in a horrible car accident, and while she lives, she becomes paralyzed from the neck down. Terrible tragedy.
The husband, however, loving her and being loyal, stays in the marriage and takes care of her, at what is generally perceived as a significant cost to himself. By the way, it's just as easy to flip the two around, it doesn't matter to the scenario, so don't come at me with some misogynistic double-talk.
Of course, due to these unfortunate circumstances, they can no longer have sex.
Now, the wife, being overwhelmed by his loyalty and love, "releases" him from his vow of fidelity, and allows him to go and satisfy his needs with other women. She allows him to have lovers, girlfriends, what have you, because she loves him dearly and can't bear to see him suffer because his needs aren't being met.
Alright, got the picture? hold it in your mind for a sec. Check your emotional reaction. For most people, it would run along the lines of "wow, what an amazing story". Maybe bring a tear or two to their eyes. What sacrifice. What love. What loyalty. Truly touching. 60 minutes will be knocking on the door in moments.
Are we still on the same page?
Good. Because this is where I am about to present a simple logical twist. These two nice folks had not been intimate with each other for a year before the accident. Why? who knows? shit happens. Their marriage, like many others, is strong but lacking in this particular respect. Nothing wrong with that, really (see my other essays on the topic). After all, I think all us married folks (at least) know that people grow in different ways, and it's pretty well established that sexual attachment to specific partners tends to ebb and flow (I would also suggest generally decrease) over time for most people, especially in conjunction with having already produced offspring. Men, in particular, seem to be wired for multiple sexual partners, although it is unclear whether that is physiological or simply cultural.
Still with me?
Before the accident, for the man to have had a lover would have been taboo, and caused severe negative reactions from most corners, even though the situation has not changed at all: he is wishing to fulfill needs that are not being met within the context of the marriage. Even more oddly, it doesn't seem to get any better if the wife agrees to his doing so before her accident; most people still get the same adverse reaction. It still does not seem to get better when I describe the scenario with the two flipped, or with the two allowing each other the same benefit, the reaction is for the most part still just as negative.
Now think about the bottom line here. For the man (or woman, in the flipped scenario) to have his (sexual) needs met in a societally approved fashion, his wife had to undergo a terrible personal tragedy.
Ouch.
In other words, societally we seem to be saying that in order for one person to attain personal happiness, it must come at a significant cost to another person.
May I politely inquire as to why?
It goes further than that. Most people's response to the above would be: they should have just gotten divorced (before the hypothetical accident). Again the specter of that trade - happiness for suffering - rears its ugly head. Divorce would indubitably cause suffering to both parties - they still love each other, are great friends, and terrific partners - as well as to their kids. And it would be completely unnecessary and counter-productive for everyone involved considering the solid marriage these two people share. All in the name of having their (sexual) needs met, frustrations reduced, and mutual happiness increased. Again we seem to not wish to allow them to be happier without incurring some cost to others.
What kinds of fucked up morals are these? is this really the value system and ladder we want to live by? I'll repeat again what all this really boils down to: as a society, we seem to have come to the conclusion that one person's happiness must come at another's suffering. Holy cynical mother of god.
I don't know about you, but personally, I don't really wish to follow this model.
That is, when you speak to people, no matter how open-minded they want to appear, by and large it comes down to sex. Specifically, the question of how can you stand your spouse having sex with someone else? this seems to, by a large margin, be the number one reason for all the inevitable judgment.
So as we were going through this for the umpteenth time (for me anyway), I remembered something my wife said a few months back about a theoretical scenario that seems to put this question into focus. It goes more or less like this: say that two folks are married for 10 years, then suddenly the wife is involved in a horrible car accident, and while she lives, she becomes paralyzed from the neck down. Terrible tragedy.
The husband, however, loving her and being loyal, stays in the marriage and takes care of her, at what is generally perceived as a significant cost to himself. By the way, it's just as easy to flip the two around, it doesn't matter to the scenario, so don't come at me with some misogynistic double-talk.
Of course, due to these unfortunate circumstances, they can no longer have sex.
Now, the wife, being overwhelmed by his loyalty and love, "releases" him from his vow of fidelity, and allows him to go and satisfy his needs with other women. She allows him to have lovers, girlfriends, what have you, because she loves him dearly and can't bear to see him suffer because his needs aren't being met.
Alright, got the picture? hold it in your mind for a sec. Check your emotional reaction. For most people, it would run along the lines of "wow, what an amazing story". Maybe bring a tear or two to their eyes. What sacrifice. What love. What loyalty. Truly touching. 60 minutes will be knocking on the door in moments.
Are we still on the same page?
Good. Because this is where I am about to present a simple logical twist. These two nice folks had not been intimate with each other for a year before the accident. Why? who knows? shit happens. Their marriage, like many others, is strong but lacking in this particular respect. Nothing wrong with that, really (see my other essays on the topic). After all, I think all us married folks (at least) know that people grow in different ways, and it's pretty well established that sexual attachment to specific partners tends to ebb and flow (I would also suggest generally decrease) over time for most people, especially in conjunction with having already produced offspring. Men, in particular, seem to be wired for multiple sexual partners, although it is unclear whether that is physiological or simply cultural.
Still with me?
Before the accident, for the man to have had a lover would have been taboo, and caused severe negative reactions from most corners, even though the situation has not changed at all: he is wishing to fulfill needs that are not being met within the context of the marriage. Even more oddly, it doesn't seem to get any better if the wife agrees to his doing so before her accident; most people still get the same adverse reaction. It still does not seem to get better when I describe the scenario with the two flipped, or with the two allowing each other the same benefit, the reaction is for the most part still just as negative.
Now think about the bottom line here. For the man (or woman, in the flipped scenario) to have his (sexual) needs met in a societally approved fashion, his wife had to undergo a terrible personal tragedy.
Ouch.
In other words, societally we seem to be saying that in order for one person to attain personal happiness, it must come at a significant cost to another person.
May I politely inquire as to why?
It goes further than that. Most people's response to the above would be: they should have just gotten divorced (before the hypothetical accident). Again the specter of that trade - happiness for suffering - rears its ugly head. Divorce would indubitably cause suffering to both parties - they still love each other, are great friends, and terrific partners - as well as to their kids. And it would be completely unnecessary and counter-productive for everyone involved considering the solid marriage these two people share. All in the name of having their (sexual) needs met, frustrations reduced, and mutual happiness increased. Again we seem to not wish to allow them to be happier without incurring some cost to others.
What kinds of fucked up morals are these? is this really the value system and ladder we want to live by? I'll repeat again what all this really boils down to: as a society, we seem to have come to the conclusion that one person's happiness must come at another's suffering. Holy cynical mother of god.
I don't know about you, but personally, I don't really wish to follow this model.
posted by Blinkered at 9:32 AM
3 Comments:
I think the broad generalization that as a society we accept that one's happiness has to come with the suffering of another is going too far. Yes, for the specific scenario with respect to sex.
I am poly too (osonda on PMM), but I think I see a flaw in the argument, it being that, before the accident, someone believing in monogamy could say "well, they are not having sex but they can work on overcoming that, so his having a lover would be detrimental to it, distracting him from that goal, whereas there is no hope after the accident, so the situation did change".
Does that make sense?
Cheers,
Rodrigo
Rodrigo,
While I see your point, I think I am considering a different scenario, one in which the couple has already decided before the accident that they don't want to "work on it" anymore.
Of course, now someone would pipe in and say something along the lines of "why don't they divorce then?" to which my response is "so all marriages should be founded on sex?"
I think the main point here is that sex should NOT by necessity be a foundation for or even cornerstone of marriage, nor should sexual exclusivity EVER be determined by anyone or any structure (marriage or otherwise) other than those who are involved in any particular relationship.
Post a Comment
<< Home