• Home
  • About Sungold
  • Scholarly Sungold

Kittywampus

Slightly skewed views on feminism, politics, parenthood, and the occasional kitty.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The 24/7 Professor
Lefthandedness, Intersex, and Biological Variability »

About That “New” Trend toward Fidelity …

September 12, 2009 by Sungold

Sometimes I’m mystified at what gets picked up and treated seriously even by bloggers and scholars I respect. Earlier this week, Courtney Martin at Feministing mentioned a post by Virginia Rutter at Girl w/Pen. Virginia Rutter is a smart, serious scholar. But I wasn’t convinced by this post, where she argues that monogamy is on the rise even as couples are talking more about potential affairs:

Are people really having less sex? Well, at the very least, it looks like they are having less sex outside of their committed relationships, according to a new study written up in Scientific American. But it also looks like people may be making up for having less sex outside of committed relationships by talking about it more. And that is good news for sex.

First the news: In each category surveyed—gay, lesbian, straight—people report fewer affairs now than in the 1970s. Everybody has changed in terms of monogamy: gay men do it (where do it means doing non-monogamy) 59% now versus 82% in the 1970s. Nowadays, straight men do it less—14%. Meanwhile, 13% of straight women and 8% of lesbians do it. As we keep seeing again and again in recent surveys on monogamy, women—lesbian and straight—still report fewer affairs than their male counterparts, but they are catching up with the boys, as UW psychologist David Atkins has shown. On the one hand, affairs overall may be on the decline because of STDS and the like; on the other hand, women may be catching up because they have greater autonomy and economic independence.

That is all interesting, but this is also potentially good news for wild, free-for-all sex. The investigators from Alliant International University in San Francisco showed that over the same period people have also increased how much they talk to their partners about the idea of sex outside of their relationship. (What’s happening in those conversations, report these psychologists, is that they are talking about outside liaisons, and deciding against them.)

But the other discovery here is about the talking. Increasingly, this study hints, people are talking about the notion of sex outside their relationship–talking about forbidden, off-the-approved-roster sex with someone who isn’t an official or legal sweetheart–even if in the end they decide against it. Conversations like that—no matter what the outcome—mean that more and more people are acknowledging, countenancing, and admitting that they and their partners are completely capable of having sexual fantasies about someone other than their official one. We all know that being in a committed relationship doesn’t change our brain structure and doesn’t stop a great, diverse sexual imagination about all manner of things, people, and situations. But when people don’t talk about it, they have to tell one another lies, and pretend like their fantasies don’t exist.

So, maybe people are saying no to the reality of sex with their hot new colleague, but if they are saying yes to a conversation about it with their partner, it might mean that those partners will be better at dreaming up their own edgier, more interesting sex. And, by the way, in a world where women have greater sexual freedom to have affairs, they also have greater freedom to acknowledge desire and have conversations about it that can lead to fewer affairs.

(I’ve reprinted the whole thing so as not to distort her argument.)

This is a utopian vision, isn’t it? People are actually communicating about sex, women’s desires are being legitimized, and everyone is having hotter sex while treating their partners with more integrity?

I don’t want to be a party-pooper. I respect Virginia Rutter immensely. When I teach about sexuality, I rely partly on the work she’s done with Pepper Schwartz. But, nerd that I am, I went to the Scientific American piece – and what I found there looked considerably less utopian.

First, the data compare a survey from 1975 to one conducted in 2000. The latest data in the comparison are thus nearly a decade old. They don’t represent “now.” Sure, there’s always a lag time between research and publication, but this one is a doozy.

What we’re seeing is not a new trend by any means. We’re simply seeing the impact of fear of AIDS. Both Rutter and the Scientific American article note the effect of STIs, but neither discusses the chronology. I’m only guessing, but I’m pretty confident that if comparable data were available from 1990, they’d look a lot like the figures from 2000. The headline in Scientific American, “Monogamy Is All the Rage These Days,” makes it sound like we’re at the bleeding edge of a new trend. That might be true on a geological scale; otherwise, not so much.

But maybe I’m just being a curmudgeonly old historian, insisting we get the chronology right? Maybe the real story is that people are talking about affairs with their partners, yet deciding not to stray? Here’s what Scientific American said on that point:

It’s worth pointing out, however, that [in 2000] 43.7 percent of those gay men said they “discussed sex outside the relationship and decided that under some circumstances it is all right.” Only 5 percent of lesbians and about 3.5 percent of straight couples had a similar agreement. Again, all groups report many fewer of these open relationships than they did in 1975, when about 20 percent of straight couples, 34 percent of lesbians and nearly 68 percent of gay men agreed to forgo monogamy.

And the percentage of couples who are decidedly closed to sex outside the relationship—they discussed extra-partnership sex and decided that “under no circumstances is it alright”—just about doubled in every group (from around 43 percent in 1975 to around 80 percent in 2000) except in gay men, among whom it more than tripled (13 to 44 percent). “It was surprising to us that in all groups, the trend is toward monogamy,” said Gabrielle Gotta, lead author of the study.

(The rest is here.)

Unfortunately, there’s no link to the original study, and perhaps Rutter was privy to more information than Scientific American provides. But assuming this précis is accurate, it doesn’t even hint that Gotta and her colleagues discovered ongoing conversations about desires and fantasies. Instead, they found that people decided that extra-partnership sex was not okay. Ever. That sounds to me much more like a one-time agreement, likely struck early in the relationship. It doesn’t sound like constant negotiation and communication, much less sharing fantasies about hot co-workers.

In fact, though I realize some people get off on swapping fantasies about specific people, I’m not at all convinced that this is a recipe for spicing up sex in most long-term relationships. Fantasies are one thing; fantasies about a specific, flesh-and-blood individual are quite another. Such “extra-partnership” fantasies are liable to evoke jealousy. They can be used manipulatively, to stoke insecurities and keep one’s partner in line. People who are committed to polyamory often still struggle with jealousy. What happens to a couple who are “decidedly closed to sex outside the relationship” when one of them discloses daydreams about an affair? Will this heat up their sex life? Or will it just plant the seeds of suspicion?

So yeah, it would be wonderful if none of us felt jealousy. It would be even better if we could freely communicate our desires and fantasies without fear of being judged or hurting our partners. But that’s not the world we live in – and nothing in the description of this new study suggests we’ve edged much closer to a utopia of freewheeling desires.

Share this:

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in blogging, ethics, LGBT, marriage, science, sex | 7 Comments

7 Responses

  1. on September 12, 2009 at 8:10 am Reg Webb

    Thanks for this dose of reality.
    I wonder how many people who embark on an open relationship have really had the jealousy conversation. Not the theoretical conversation about how they think they will feel. The real one once one of you is actually doing it. Ahead of time, I can well imagine saying that this is fine because I think it ought to be, as part of my self-image as an open minded kind of guy. But, if my partner were actually having sex with someone else, would I be able to think that, if I truly love this person, I should be glad that she’s able to get something I can’t give her? I would hope so, but I fear I might find myself thinking all kinds of things with no basis in fact, and feeling all kinds of jealousy, unworthy of the person I would hope to be.

    If I were having sex with someone else within an otherwise committed relationship, and my partner was overcome by jealous rage, would I rationalise that she was the one being unreasonable, simply because it stopped me doing something I enjoyed? Is enjoyment at all costs really such a universal imperative? Doesn’t it mean rather that, if I can put my enjoyment ahead of my partner’s pain, I don’t love her enough to be in such a relationship.

    I think a lot of the time, we’re asking our partners for permission to be selfish, hoping they’ll love us enough to concede. If the conversations people are having are aimed at genuine reciprocity, we are lucky indeed to find that degree of honesty between two people, and that’s probably worth hanging onto in itself. Not expecting our partner to tolerate anything we couldn’t tolerate is an obvious start. Fidelity needn’t necessarily mean monogamy; it means, once you have an agreement, you should stick to it, or talk about changing it before resorting to lies and deceit.


    • on September 13, 2009 at 12:48 am Sungold

      Reg, I haven’t been ignoring your comment; I’m mulling it over. I think I might need to write a post party in response. But I agree with nearly everything you’ve said, which is why the part I’m not so sure about – honest at all costs being a value – is unsettling me.


      • on November 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm Virginia Rutter

        Sungold! Wow, I just found this, and I totally appreciate it, and I think you are clearer than I was about these results. But let me try to say again (to you on your lovely blog) what I was trying to say before at gwp: that what is of interest to me is the way in which people actually do talk–not about their desires and better sexual communication for how to do it this way or that way, I don’t know how people are doing with that–but about the notion that infidelity as a possibility. Even in the explicit, hell no!, conversation, that is a change from a time when the rules and expectations about sex in couples was taken as a given. And that those rules were likely to include a double standard. It was an impression that I got from those data, but I haven’t had a chance to look closely at them, and they are currently being reanalyzed, so I understand.

        I also wanted to respond to your “honest at all costs being a value” point. That was definitely not what I was talking about. I basically think that when partners are able–through their own particular ways of doing so–to acknowledge that sexual interest in others continues even if one knows for sure that they have agreed “hell no!” that this is a constructive way to conduct a relationship. This doesn’t necessarily mean telling my partner every time I have a sexual fantasy about …whoever… but it does mean that my partner and I could have a winking, humorous understanding that monogamy and a vivid sexual imagination can go together.

        I think in your comments and others’ all the questions about different variables–age, period, cohort–all stand as interesting for teasing apart the data and also for trying to figure out causes for the change. There’s a paper I expect to see in the spring on age, period, cohort analysis of infidelity trends that might help us pull it apart. In the meanwhile, what interests me are the two opposite trends: 1. more conservative behavior and 2. more open discussion of sexuality and fidelity.

        Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. Best, Virginia


  2. on September 12, 2009 at 11:54 pm ballgame

    Sungold, I think you make a lot valid points wrt the differences between the two surveys likely being more about pre- and post-AIDS era concerns about STDs than about anything specific happening in the past couple of years.

    There is, however, one very large independent variable which hasn’t been discussed: age. The relative ages of the two survey groups is not indicated. I can’t help but wonder if the 2000 survey group was significantly older than the 1975 group. If so, that may also have contributed to the 2000 group’s longer relationships and lower likelihood to engage in outside affairs.


    • on September 13, 2009 at 12:53 am Sungold

      Ballgame, you make an excellent point. I didn’t think about possible differences in ages at all, but you’re absolutely right that an older group will tend to have different attitudes and may be less likely to stray (though that also depends on exactly *how* old the average age might be – 40 is likely to be restless; 60, not quite so much, although even then we’re talking about *averages*).

      The sample from 1975 was a full order of magnitude larger (about 12,000 versus 1000) but again, without access to the scientific journal version of this study, it’s impossible to know what impact might result from the different sample sizes, if any.


  3. on September 13, 2009 at 3:43 am Reg Webb

    Sungold, when I wrote:
    “we are lucky indeed to find that degree of honesty
    between two people, and that’s probably worth hanging onto in itself”
    I used my normal sloppy thinking enabling word “probably”. In this case, I was thinking about the value of honesty as I’ve experienced it within a particular relationship – a part which I’ve found of particular value – and failing to be clear about that. Honesty in the presence of nothing else clearly isn’t the stuff of a rewarding partnership.

    In this area, a slippery slope which presents itself is the whole “white lies” issue. When does our wish to protect our partners from unnecessary pain by screening them from trivial things which we know are not important spill over into “well, what she/he doesn’t know can’t hurt her”, and thence into the guilty joy of getting away with something we know our partner believes to be off limits by mutual consent. To me, hiding things now usually spells trouble up ahead.


  4. on September 13, 2009 at 5:02 am Reg Webb

    I just wanted to add that honesty with our partners seems like good protection against dishonesty in ourselves.
    We humans like nothing better than an altruistic sounding pretext for a selfish action.



Comments are closed.

  • More Kitty!

      Subscribe in a reader

    Subscribe to Kittywampus by Email
  • Grey Kitty

    gkprof Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
  • Comments: Please Play Nicely

    I love critical but constructive feedback. I'm happy to entertain opposing arguments. I'm not willing to host mudslinging, ad hominem attacks, disrespect, unkindness, or hate - especially toward other commenters. Obvious trolls, jerks, and spammers will see their comments deleted and future comments blocked.
  • Recent Comments

    Rob F on Anti-Authoritarian Caturd…
    Ryan on Anti-Authoritarian Caturd…
    ballgame on Anti-Authoritarian Caturd…
    hydraargyrum on Anti-Authoritarian Caturd…
    Sungold on Anti-Authoritarian Caturd…
  • My site was nominated for Hottest Mommy Blogger!
  • Categories

  • cats dystopia election 2008 embodied experience ethics feminism gender stereotypes Germany health history hypocrisy kids local news LOLcats lucky me masculinity media medicine parenting politicians reproductive rights sex sexism shame silliness stupidity teaching violence weirdness wingnuts
  • Recent Posts

    • Anti-Authoritarian Caturday
    • Has the War on Women Met Its Waterloo?
    • The Littlest Lobbyists (Oh, Oh, Ohio! Your Abortion Politics Shame Me)
    • SOPA Is Dead. Long Live SOPA!
    • My Christmas Note to Our Pres
  • Twittywampus

    • @SteveBurnsAlive My kid - home sick - just requested Blue's Big Musical. Leo's nearly 10. You're still beloved. (Albeit upside-down.) 1 month ago
    • @TheApostate A reader emailed that she liked my old post on PC & Shakesville (I linked and quoted you) - and she wanted more Apostate! 6 months ago
    • Blog: Anti-Authoritarian Caturday bit.ly/OQnKyl 8 months ago
    • Blog: Has the War on Women Met Its Waterloo? bit.ly/yEiRYg 1 year ago
    • Blog: The Littlest Lobbyists (Oh, Oh, Ohio! Your Abortion Politics Shame Me) bit.ly/yU5YDY 1 year ago
  • Archives

    • September 2012 (1)
    • February 2012 (1)
    • January 2012 (2)
    • December 2011 (4)
    • November 2011 (1)
    • October 2011 (1)
    • September 2011 (5)
    • August 2011 (7)
    • July 2011 (6)
    • June 2011 (2)
    • May 2011 (7)
    • April 2011 (13)
    • March 2011 (8)
    • February 2011 (19)
    • January 2011 (21)
    • December 2010 (17)
    • November 2010 (26)
    • October 2010 (13)
    • September 2010 (11)
    • August 2010 (20)
    • July 2010 (26)
    • June 2010 (18)
    • May 2010 (13)
    • April 2010 (9)
    • March 2010 (23)
    • February 2010 (15)
    • January 2010 (19)
    • December 2009 (27)
    • November 2009 (20)
    • October 2009 (25)
    • September 2009 (30)
    • August 2009 (38)
    • July 2009 (33)
    • June 2009 (30)
    • May 2009 (31)
    • April 2009 (30)
    • March 2009 (32)
    • February 2009 (34)
    • January 2009 (28)
    • December 2008 (34)
    • November 2008 (31)
    • October 2008 (34)
    • September 2008 (43)
    • August 2008 (31)
    • July 2008 (34)
    • June 2008 (30)
    • May 2008 (35)
    • April 2008 (30)
    • March 2008 (31)
    • February 2008 (35)
    • January 2008 (18)
  • Blogroll

    • 922 Cats
    • Alas, a Blog
    • Astarte’s Circus
    • Badtux the Snarky Penguin
    • Blue Gal
    • Blue Milk
    • Bookworm
    • Brilliant at Breakfast
    • Broadsheet
    • Daisy’s Dead Air
    • Dohiyi Mir
    • Echidne
    • Feministe
    • Feministing
    • Fetch Me My Axe
    • Figleaf
    • Firedoglake
    • Flip flopping joy
    • Glenn Greenwald
    • Henry’s Travels
    • Hexpletive
    • Historiann
    • Holly’s Self-Portrait As
    • Hugo Schwyzer
    • Hullaballoo (Digby)
    • Jon Swift
    • Jump off the Bridge
    • Knitting Clio
    • Loserdust
    • Lynn Alexander
    • Mirabile Dictu
    • Mom’s Tinfoil Hat
    • Monkeyfister
    • Mothers for Women's Lib
    • Natalia Antonova
    • No Cookies for Me
    • Noli Irritare Leones
    • Pandagon
    • Pharyngula
    • Plain(s)feminist
    • Professor, What If …?
    • Questioning Transphobia
    • Racialicious
    • RH Reality Check
    • ROTUS
    • Sadly, No!
    • Screed
    • Shakesville
    • Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
    • Sociological Images
    • Sugarmag’s Random Thoughts
    • The American Virgin
    • The Curvature
    • The Feminist Underground
    • The Political Cat
    • The Second Awakening
    • The Smirking Cat
    • The Well-Timed Period
    • Tiger Beatdown
    • Tiny Cat Pants
    • Viva La Feminista
    • Womanist Musings
  • Wherever you go, there you are

    Locations of visitors to this page
  • wordpress stat wordpress stats plugin

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by WPThemes.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: