I actually read it as a more chilling possibility: in our culture, even the Governor of New York can't get what he wants sexually by honest, open negotiation. Being open with his wife about the fact that he wants to be poly? She either gets half of his (lots of, as he's very wealthy with inherited wealth) stuff, or, if he's really proactive and brings it up in dating, prior to the marriage, she cuts their relationship short. Sex with a younger, stereotypically-attractive woman? Again, not in the cards, apparently, not without $ and side action, moreover, he'd picked the wrong line of work, as I suppose a single babe-magnet governor would not go down well with voters/legislators, even more so if he were openly poly. O America, renunciation is all!

• reply

I find this train of thought objectionable on several levels. First of all, it's just not very credible that most women would end a relationship because their partner brought up the possibility of being poly. Given that women are often willing to stay with a partner who has cheated on them behind their backs, it strikes me as highly unlikely that bringing up consensual non-monogamy would result in sudden dumping. Having seen female friends stick with men who were obvious losers, I have just don't find it credible that an otherwise desirable polyamorous guy would be unable to find a willing mate.

Second, in what universe is it morally OK to enter into a monogamous relationship with the intention to cheat, just because the other person might not want to be with you if you were honest? How is that any kind of excuse?

Third, "sex-positive" doesn't mean that men are entitled to sex with younger, stereotypically attractive women on whatever terms they (the men) want. If an old dude wants to fuck young, stereotypically attractive women, and those women aren't interested in fucking him, maybe the problem is not that society needs to shape up and give him the fantasy sex he wants. Maybe the problem is that he needs to adjust his expectations.

Forth, being polyamorous doesn't mean you suddenly get everything you want sexually. Maybe the outside partners you're interested in aren't interested in you. Well, their desires count too. Maybe your partner is uncomfortable with you having sex under certain circumstances, or with certain people. Well, their desires count too. "Poly" != "everything you want, no strings attached".

• reply

Ah, yes, the usual "entitlement" BS. No, I was actually underlining the fact that ALL of those things may be impossible because of intractable elements of a panoply of variables, but most ascribable to American culture, where a man of Spitzer's age and position may not be able overcome these barriers. I'm literally saying that OUR culture, in the aggregate, will produce wall-to-wall age discrimination against older men that would stymie his quest for younger partners, whereas other societies would produce some younger women willing to pair up with such a man without financial inducement. I think the barriers to such things (poly marriage, etc.) are higher in our culture, so much higher than in others that we talk obsessively about people not being able to get laid, which is a given in Europe--in fact the idea of involuntary celibacy is CULTURALLY unintelligible to Europeans and Israelis, I would say--and the usual feminist response is, as above, to treat the impossibility of getting what one wants as an objection to women's agency tout court.

ReCaptcha "with tunes." How about a slow jam?

• reply

One last jab: if celibacy is the result of embracing narrow standards that are completely divorced from a realistic assessment of one's own desirability, in what sense exactly is it involuntary?

• reply

"In this regard, at least, the "progress" away from the term "sociobiology" and towards "evolutionary psychology" is a step down hill. Because I mean *hello,* do humans only eat for purposes of nourishment, build structures for shelter, or jump in the water to fish, rinse, or escape fire?"

Just a little point: Humans' tendency to have sex even when pregnancy cannot result has evolved through the natural selection, just as eating did, just as social behaviour did. That means that ultimately, non-reproductive sex has - maybe very indirectly - helped spread one's genes in the environment where our ancestors used to live. (No, it's not a purely cultural invention that appeared when we suddenly became so very refined and different from animals - as evidenced by some animals engaging in it, as you mentioned.)

Same goes for eating and social behaviour. Ultimately, those drives exist because they have increased the amount of offspring one will have. That doesn't mean they are motivated by some conscious or unconscious wish to have a child.

So. The theory doesn't go that all male sexual behaviour is reproductive (huh? Why just male?) but that all common traits with genetic basis, *including non-reproductive sex*, are traits that make the genes that cause them more common - i.e., enhance the gene-carriers' chances to reproduce. You offered one possible mechanism: "...don't other primates (at least) use opposite and same-sex non-reproductive behavior in status, bonding, and relaxation activities?"

(On a less serious side note, I'm apparently not a human. I entered wrong the recaptcha. :-( Does this make me diqualified to argue about human biology?)

[Hi Larus. I tend to take a less Napoleonic Law (i.e. "that which is not permitted is forbidden") and more of a modern one (i.e. "that which is not forbidden is permitted.) And consequently while I agree that yes, sex even when pregnancy can't result is a product of natural selection... but only in the same sense that "humans not having wings" is a similar product. And while that might sound sarcastic I promise I don't mean it that way. Because once upon a time *birds* didn't have wings either (ok, proto birds didn't) but they did have fuzz for insulation or feathers for display. And here's the deal: *if* use of those features had been *constrained* by natural selection, then survival requirements would never have let them be repurposed into wings. So anyway, *that's* what I mean when I dismiss the "men spreading seed" theory of male-only philandering. --fl]

• reply

"certain aspects of our sex-negative culture impoverish discourse on getting one's needs met."

Well, that much I'll agree with, at least on a broad level (I suspect we might find plenty more to disagree about in the specifics).

One of the things that irritated me so profoundly was that, however defensible your argument is in general, I don't think Spitzer is a good hook on which to hang that hat. Supposing for the moment that you're correct in your suggestion that this came about because he wanted to engage in responsible non-monogamy (I'd like to see evidence for that supposition, if you have it), either he:

a) did not consult his wife about the possibility of renegotiating their relationship contract. You argue (it appears) that this was because doing so carried too much risk that the mere mention of it might lead to her cancelling said contract, and in potentially nasty ways - but acting on his desires without doing so carries the same risk, the only difference being that it might, in that way, go undiscovered. Or,

b) did consult her, and the negotiation failed, though the original relationship contract remained intact; nevertheless, he placed his desires higher than adhering to the terms of that contract. Or,

c) consulted her and successfully renegotiated the contract to allow non-monogamy - in which case your argument about that side of it being impossible is negated; it may be problematic, but it can't be impossible.

Only in the third case does his behavior not involve disregard for his wife's wants/needs, and for the relationship contract.
-----
On a different note, my own (fairly extensive, but purely empirical) observations of the mating habits of hot young men (that is, those I find hot; the mating habits of those I don't find hot are of academic interest only) strongly suggests that these habits can vary considerably from HYM to HYM.

This, and other observations of human nature, lead me to question your (I may be using that loosely; I'm not certain how much it's specifically yours) methodology regarding women. You find a difference between "what women want" and "what women claim to want". This is very possibly true, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that women, like men, are subject to social/cultural influence about what they are "supposed" to want (which generally applies more strongly in the case of younger men and women, than older ones).

But to what extent have you (again loosely) controlled for individual difference? I'm not saying you haven't, but I've very often observed it not being controlled for. To what extent are the claims being made by the specific women being studied (i.e., a significant proportion of the observed women each showed a distinct variation between her stated wants and what she responded to), as compared to claims that the observer has heard women, not necessarily those studied, make?

Sunflower

("declare diplomat" - at the very least, reCaptcha has a mordant sense of humor.)

• reply

Lots of stuff to be mined here...I think you are already addressing the situation from a position of privilege, to the extent that you are working within the context of a liberal (i.e. capitalist) socio-economic system with (at least formal) legal equality of the sexes. One legalization argument is almost always phrased in terms of people who can't get *any* of what they want, stereotypically men but there must be women who fit that definition as well. Setting that aside (for the moment) we find the peculiarly American dilemma of the partner as a status-symbol, or, better put, socialization to disdain the people one actually attracts. Finally, both are red herrings to the questions of realism and negotiation: you assume that you have some leverage over someone somewhere at some time. There is a *some* social science research on men who *never* get into the het relationships they want, and all of it indicates a profound *lack of realism* conjoined to an inability to perform in the standard male het sex role.

"Enjoying yourself in the limits of the possible" is the action of someone who is already sexually empowered, clearly what Spitzer wanted was already off-limits, since he was surreptitiously PAYING for it. It's true we can't know whether he negotiated polyamory with his wife, or attempted to, but the fact of a public apology along with "rebuilding family trust" as an issue implies he didn't. The non-consensual non-monogamy and the criminality cloud the issues, true. Spitzer is not a very good hat to hang one's argument on.

So, to refine the question, how *many* people are there who can't negotiate *any sex at all* and how *many* are there who fall in the cracks, i.e. give up on every form of sex because they can't get the kind they want? And how do these people relate to the sex industries in our society? I may be a radical purist (thanks to my religious upbringing) but will spare you Too Much Information, however.

ReCaptcha "Root institution". Don't I know it...

• reply

The lack of realism is exactly my point. To the extent that a lot of men have unrealistic desires, making sure those desires get met (free of charge!) is not my problem, nor, I would argue, society's problem.

I agree with you P. Burke. Perhaps your landlord had skimmed through the Declaration of Independence and read these words:

...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Obviously he did not stop to consider that his pursuit of happiness would put a major dent in your liberty.

I am sorry that you had to move, P. Burke, and for the stomach-churning that ensued after your landlord disturbed your sense of safety.

There are many people, men and women, who do not have sex as often as they want with the partners they want. That is a fact of life. Even if you are fortunate to find a partner with whom you enjoy a wonderful sex life, that can change in an instant due to death, accident, or illness. How we choose to deal with that reality is a function of our character and, it will shape our character. I speak from experience since my husband's illness severely curtailed our sex life. My life will be shaped by my choice to respond to that reality with compassion or with bitterness.

I do not believe that society has any responsibility to help me remedy this situation. However, I do no believe society should criminalize the means by which I and many others might seek to remedy this situation, i.e., by using the services of a sex worker.

• reply

At first I decided not to answer this because I simply cannot figure out if you're making a seriously confused argument here or if it's just my bad English, and that probably means I shouldn't be writing this. But here I go anyway. Feel free to ignore me if you'd like.

First: You seem to be saying that birds developed flying because it wasn't disadvantageous to them, and that humans developed non-reproductive sex for the same reason. I can't see how that could be true. The change from warming or decorative feathers to ones that are useful in flying requires complicated genetic changes, and so does the change from a sex drive that works only when in heat to one that works continuosly. These changes have spread to the whole population. That wouldn't happen by chance.

Second, I'm not sure what the last sentence in your response means. My point was that one cannot dismiss a behaviour as not a product of natural selection just because it doesn't directly impregnate anyone (eating comes to mind as an example of such behaviour...). But that argument is *not even needed* in the particular case of the "spreading seed" hypothesis, because that is about *reproductive* sex.

Third, as for male-only philandering, it isn't. Women philander, too - possibly less than men (or maybe not), but they do. And there are evolutionary explanations for that, too.
Not that those explanations have to be true, anymore than the ones concerning men: there are many, many factors affecting the human behaviour, of which our genetic makeup is only one. I wouldn't be terribly surprised or disappointed if it turned out that some cultural or individual or -- well, psychoanalytic? magical? -- explanation played a bigger role in infidelity than the biological ones. (But I think it would be smart to bear in mind that there almost certainly are *both* biological and cultural and other factors affecting together, at the same time.)

I'm not going into a great depth here, but there are some books on the subject I'd really like to recommend you.

--

Fourth, and now I'm serious. It's pretty obvious that you (and your commenters) have an agenda here - to prove that... oh, let's quote Marianne on it: "I can't imagine why anyone would want to use this malarkey as an 'excuse' for behavioural choices... it's completely dehumanizing. I'd far rather see a man who stands up and says, "Here are my choices... they may not be yours, and I'm sorry if you're offended by them, but they are my choices, not a requirement of genetics.""

And I absolutely agree with all of that. The problem is, when someone tries to excuse misbehaviour with evolutionary biology, then opposing them by saying that the biology is wrong is not the right way to do it, not even an effective way. Look, the argument that "infidelity isn't wrong if it has a genetic basis" is very, very wrong on several levels - it's bad biology, bad psychology, bad ethics and bad argumentation (you can probably see how, but if not, I can explain it). If you choose the counter-argument that infidelity hasn't in fact, a genetic basis, and therefore is still wrong, you are essentially accepting and endorsing all that bad argumentation and engaging in some of your own. You're not disproving the *if, then* argument, which is where the real problem is. That makes you vulnerable to future discoveries, the same way "God of the gaps" Christianity does.

It worries me that I often see particularly feminists use this kind of reasoning. It worries me even more when it puts them at odds with science.

[Hi Laurus. I don't think it's your English which seems fine. My position really is founded in biology and not some kind of politically-correct creationism. I was influenced by professors who were influenced by Jacques Monod's microbiology on the one hand, and his philosophy of science on the other. One of the questions we were exposed to was the influence of contingency on genomes, with one of the specific problems being whether, as E. O. Wilson fancifully proposed, that inventions such as the wheel or bow and arrow couldn't take place until some human somewhere developed a "use bow and arrow" gene, and that a gene like that would convey such a social advantage that before you knew it everyone without that gene was conquered and died out. The alternative explanation would be that humans have a gene set for, say, adaptive behavior such that one human only needs to see another human with a bow and arrow to want one too. The point being while genes unquestionably have *some* influence on human behavior, there's not much evidence for *highly complex* behavior (e.g. use of bows and arrows) as the *direct outcome* of natural selection. I'm not sure I'm making this any clearer, and admittedly it's been 25 years since my last microbiology, history of science, or philosophy of science course, but my point is that if I was less familiar with science I might be more comfortable with extravagant claims by evolutionary-pop psychologists. --fl]

• reply