A couple of thoughts based on reading Cheri of Secret Lover’s Lane response to an anonymous commenter who, evidently informed by the Two Rules of Desire, claimed, roughly, that women want only emotional rewards from sex and men want only physical rewards. (In her post Cheri angrily but ably challenges the commenter, as you can for yourself here.)

Claims of sociobiology not withstanding, it seems like our social structures make it so that women can’t afford to prize physical enjoyment with multiple partners and men can’t afford to prize emotional rewards with partners either. Our traditional social contract says women must be economically marginalized to the point that they and/or their children will suffer if they don’t hitch their wagons to someone who’s earning power isn’t artificially suppressed. And meanwhile under the same contract men are expected to financially and socially support any partner they form emotional bonds with (see “kept woman,” “mistress.”)

“Can’t afford” is obviously not the same thing as “don’t have.” I’m not necessarily endorsing polyamory. I don’t think it’s bad, I’m just not necessarily endorsing it. But, for instance, rethinking the constructed dichotomies would benefit both men and women in serial monogamy, short-term pre-relationship dating, or the kind of studious “hookup culture” relationships. Especially in areas where there’s enough social and economic parity, sufficient income/productivity/social-infrastructure, and access to fertility management to allow individuals of any gender to raise children independently.

Getting back to Cheri, point #2 would seem particularly clear because while she’s married she’s the primary income earner, the primary household manager, the primary child-care provider (though I could be really mistaken about that) and the one most experienced with what she seeks in multiple relationships.

I keep forgetting to do this but if you’re an adult you can click to see a possibly not-work-safe image.