Probably the "monogamish" relationship only "works" for elite couples where both have well-paying careers and no children. I doubt that anyone would ever really feel secure and comfortable in such a relationship with the high probability for jealousy and the requirement of independence for each person; looking down at traditional monogamy as co-dependent weakness. I don't see how this sort of couple could really provide a stable home life for children. The promotion of these types of relationships is done to demote family building in general, including for elites.
The elites are only deluding themselves into believing that they can live in a purely rational and intellectual manner when it comes to relationships. Maybe it is a regression back to marriage as an economic relationship, with just a dash of the newer romantic ideal. Definitely a rejection of both marriage as love and sacred covenant.
Well, and the thing that’s interesting is that elites, per Brad Wilcox of The Family Institute, “talk left, walk right.” So, they spout this stuff/fail to offer clarity about any universal framework…but then mostly live, themselves, like it’s 1954. Only, having gotten there through a process of self-actualization that most people can’t emulate.
Dan Savage famously raised a son (adopted) with his male partner. The kid is now nearly thirty, and yes, Savage made a continual point that two gay guys with an open relationship could navigate being parents.
It was a rather key part of his identity as a sex columnist for many years: gay, wild, open minded, but also a parent.
you have me thinking about the rise in having friends officiate weddings and while I really get why that is important and powerful for some -- we do lose something when the ritual of marriage isn't tethered to something communal and older (IMHO, much older) than ourselves
While my preferences and notions of love and marriage largely echo your own descriptions, I think it important to keep in mind the love you describe as traditional was also quite limited in terms of who could access the paradigm, which was, as you note, largely built around middle class white male values.
If our economic system locked you out in the 1950s on account of race, either simply by virtue of being not white, or because you dared to love someone of your own gender, you were very much out in the cold, with no social or moral codes except what you could cobble together yourself and with your partner.
That's likely Dan Savage's perspective, being gay himself. The heterosexual norms didn't fit the community he belonged to, so he made up his own norms.
Too many were locked out of notions of romantic kisses followed by nights of naughty defiance prior to settling down for a house and kids, even among straight whites, let alone those whose own libidos didn't fit into the straight jacket of acceptability on account of socially forbidden desires, or a lack of them.
My current wife is from Nigeria, and was brought up with traditional conservative Christian values, although Muslims don't differ much from Christians regarding marriage expectations. It's not a system that values women or their opinions or feelings (we met and married there, as I lived in Abuja for years, another story).
Men in Nigeria get away with casual cheating, particularly if wealthy, while women are stuck in the home and limited in where they can go and what they can do to a much greater extent. Modern or even traditional feminists would find the system appalling, not one to wish for: the compound guards might demand a woman show permission to leave the housing complex with the family car if her husband isn't in it. Drinking in public is not acceptable for women, but quite normal for men (I loved picking up the check at bush bars, where a night's suya and beer might run $20 total for us guys, and yes, I often included my wife and her brother in the festivities but most of the other women at the bar were obvious side chicks).
While I've no personal objections to my own position as an educated straight white guy in our traditions or Nigeria's norms, I do understand why so many don't miss them. These norms were even more exclusive and class based than what has replaced them, even though all social norms tend to have their own blind spots on who gets more and who gets less power, prestige, and say in them.
Still an interesting article. For those looking for a partner who is likely to share traditional values, consider immigrants, who often want stability in their personal lives, having courted sufficient change by moving for work and who may have grown up in much for conservative cultures where such values are still expected of all. It's an easy enough hack in a nation built on immigration, and one to keep in mind during a time when these newcomers are being harassed, ironically by an administration headed by two men who both married non-citizens.
There's a weird disconnect there, like so much else about this current time, but that's another topic for another time.
Yes, for sure there’s a lot of truth in all of that. Though it is worth remembering that the argument for gay marriage made by Andrew Sullivan and others in the 2000s relied a great deal on how universal these norms would be, including among people who are not straight.
The moral codes of marriage are not limited to certain races, classes, sexes, or time periods.
The ability to subvert morality and still be accepted within society has been limited by social status and supporting cultural norms. It just shows the state of elite culture that adultery has been accepted and normalized to such an extent that it is considered a virtue to be able to maintain an open marriage. It's not really writing your own script anymore to be polyamorous or monogamish since this is now held up as an ideal of open-mindedness and inclusivity. It's a triumph of progressive secularism.
Oh I remember Andrew Sullivan writing in favor of gay marriage way back in the 1980s, for the New Republic. Sullivan knew hetro-norms weren't that popular in the gay community, both as a member of it, and because commentators like Dan Savage repeatedly reminded him of it in words and deeds.
Did Sullivan still knowingly push such assurances to build support for gay marriage even so?
Sure. I remember those arguments, and I remember a gay friend dryly pointing out adding the trauma of previously straight only divorce to gay life was also inevitable under such proposals. He was less than enthused about the prospect.
As economists say, there is no free lunch, no social arrangements for marriage without some compromise by one or both partners, unless one gets exceptionally fortunate in finding someone who loves doing the chores the other detests, agrees on all aspects of financial matters, has an equal passion and sex drive, etc. I'm sure there are a small number of such relationships out there, (I certainly hope so), but for most of us relationships are a series of negotiations and trade offs to keep both satisfied enough.
If it works for those involved, that's about the best one can hope for, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Still, a fine essay.
I think a minority of people are actually about to live the monogamish lifestyle and feel fulfilled. Perhaps those who tend very heavily toward openness and eroticism (in the sense Perel uses the word). Most of us are just normies who would be happier if we could admit that to ourselves. Or maybe that’s just me. I used to enjoy listening to Esther Perel a lot, now I just find it tiring. Excellent read!
P.S. I really appreciate your writing tone and ability to discuss ideas that you clearly don’t align with in a non-inflammatory way. It’s clear you are someone who regularly engages with those who disagree with you. I’ll have to give Perel another listen sometime, it’s been a while and I’m sure I’d have another perspective now.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! I’ve been the most conservative person in a LOT of very leftist rooms and, more recently, the most liberal person in a lot of fairly conservative ones. I try to listen and learn, both in those spaces and across media from all ideological priors. 🙃
Probably the "monogamish" relationship only "works" for elite couples where both have well-paying careers and no children. I doubt that anyone would ever really feel secure and comfortable in such a relationship with the high probability for jealousy and the requirement of independence for each person; looking down at traditional monogamy as co-dependent weakness. I don't see how this sort of couple could really provide a stable home life for children. The promotion of these types of relationships is done to demote family building in general, including for elites.
The elites are only deluding themselves into believing that they can live in a purely rational and intellectual manner when it comes to relationships. Maybe it is a regression back to marriage as an economic relationship, with just a dash of the newer romantic ideal. Definitely a rejection of both marriage as love and sacred covenant.
Well, and the thing that’s interesting is that elites, per Brad Wilcox of The Family Institute, “talk left, walk right.” So, they spout this stuff/fail to offer clarity about any universal framework…but then mostly live, themselves, like it’s 1954. Only, having gotten there through a process of self-actualization that most people can’t emulate.
Dan Savage famously raised a son (adopted) with his male partner. The kid is now nearly thirty, and yes, Savage made a continual point that two gay guys with an open relationship could navigate being parents.
It was a rather key part of his identity as a sex columnist for many years: gay, wild, open minded, but also a parent.
you have me thinking about the rise in having friends officiate weddings and while I really get why that is important and powerful for some -- we do lose something when the ritual of marriage isn't tethered to something communal and older (IMHO, much older) than ourselves
Could not agree more. I feel the same way about writing your own vows.
While my preferences and notions of love and marriage largely echo your own descriptions, I think it important to keep in mind the love you describe as traditional was also quite limited in terms of who could access the paradigm, which was, as you note, largely built around middle class white male values.
If our economic system locked you out in the 1950s on account of race, either simply by virtue of being not white, or because you dared to love someone of your own gender, you were very much out in the cold, with no social or moral codes except what you could cobble together yourself and with your partner.
That's likely Dan Savage's perspective, being gay himself. The heterosexual norms didn't fit the community he belonged to, so he made up his own norms.
Too many were locked out of notions of romantic kisses followed by nights of naughty defiance prior to settling down for a house and kids, even among straight whites, let alone those whose own libidos didn't fit into the straight jacket of acceptability on account of socially forbidden desires, or a lack of them.
My current wife is from Nigeria, and was brought up with traditional conservative Christian values, although Muslims don't differ much from Christians regarding marriage expectations. It's not a system that values women or their opinions or feelings (we met and married there, as I lived in Abuja for years, another story).
Men in Nigeria get away with casual cheating, particularly if wealthy, while women are stuck in the home and limited in where they can go and what they can do to a much greater extent. Modern or even traditional feminists would find the system appalling, not one to wish for: the compound guards might demand a woman show permission to leave the housing complex with the family car if her husband isn't in it. Drinking in public is not acceptable for women, but quite normal for men (I loved picking up the check at bush bars, where a night's suya and beer might run $20 total for us guys, and yes, I often included my wife and her brother in the festivities but most of the other women at the bar were obvious side chicks).
While I've no personal objections to my own position as an educated straight white guy in our traditions or Nigeria's norms, I do understand why so many don't miss them. These norms were even more exclusive and class based than what has replaced them, even though all social norms tend to have their own blind spots on who gets more and who gets less power, prestige, and say in them.
Still an interesting article. For those looking for a partner who is likely to share traditional values, consider immigrants, who often want stability in their personal lives, having courted sufficient change by moving for work and who may have grown up in much for conservative cultures where such values are still expected of all. It's an easy enough hack in a nation built on immigration, and one to keep in mind during a time when these newcomers are being harassed, ironically by an administration headed by two men who both married non-citizens.
There's a weird disconnect there, like so much else about this current time, but that's another topic for another time.
Yes, for sure there’s a lot of truth in all of that. Though it is worth remembering that the argument for gay marriage made by Andrew Sullivan and others in the 2000s relied a great deal on how universal these norms would be, including among people who are not straight.
The moral codes of marriage are not limited to certain races, classes, sexes, or time periods.
The ability to subvert morality and still be accepted within society has been limited by social status and supporting cultural norms. It just shows the state of elite culture that adultery has been accepted and normalized to such an extent that it is considered a virtue to be able to maintain an open marriage. It's not really writing your own script anymore to be polyamorous or monogamish since this is now held up as an ideal of open-mindedness and inclusivity. It's a triumph of progressive secularism.
Oh I remember Andrew Sullivan writing in favor of gay marriage way back in the 1980s, for the New Republic. Sullivan knew hetro-norms weren't that popular in the gay community, both as a member of it, and because commentators like Dan Savage repeatedly reminded him of it in words and deeds.
Did Sullivan still knowingly push such assurances to build support for gay marriage even so?
Sure. I remember those arguments, and I remember a gay friend dryly pointing out adding the trauma of previously straight only divorce to gay life was also inevitable under such proposals. He was less than enthused about the prospect.
As economists say, there is no free lunch, no social arrangements for marriage without some compromise by one or both partners, unless one gets exceptionally fortunate in finding someone who loves doing the chores the other detests, agrees on all aspects of financial matters, has an equal passion and sex drive, etc. I'm sure there are a small number of such relationships out there, (I certainly hope so), but for most of us relationships are a series of negotiations and trade offs to keep both satisfied enough.
If it works for those involved, that's about the best one can hope for, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Still, a fine essay.
I think a minority of people are actually about to live the monogamish lifestyle and feel fulfilled. Perhaps those who tend very heavily toward openness and eroticism (in the sense Perel uses the word). Most of us are just normies who would be happier if we could admit that to ourselves. Or maybe that’s just me. I used to enjoy listening to Esther Perel a lot, now I just find it tiring. Excellent read!
Thanks so much! I still like her! But this was…not her most insightful. Some elite blinders, for sure.
P.S. I really appreciate your writing tone and ability to discuss ideas that you clearly don’t align with in a non-inflammatory way. It’s clear you are someone who regularly engages with those who disagree with you. I’ll have to give Perel another listen sometime, it’s been a while and I’m sure I’d have another perspective now.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that! I’ve been the most conservative person in a LOT of very leftist rooms and, more recently, the most liberal person in a lot of fairly conservative ones. I try to listen and learn, both in those spaces and across media from all ideological priors. 🙃