The Great Mate Debate

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Swinging

There are some dangerous people out there. You may have heard of them. They have an agenda. They don't think value monogamy, they frequently gather in nightclubs, and they won't rest until they radically redefine the concept of marriage. They're aggressively non-monogamous and don't value fidelity and faithfulness and many of them think they should be allowed to be legally married. In some places they are legally married!

And have I mentioned that they recruit?

I speak, of course, of heterosexual swingers. This video, produced by a swingers organization, opens on a married, heterosexual couple doing some, um, traditional married heterosexual things. An unseen narrator asks the couple, "Would you like to make lots of exciting new friends? And have sex with them?", then walks the couple through the basics of "the lifestyle," a term swingers embrace. Here's the video--and be warned, it's definitely NSFW, or "not safe for work."

I wrote about swingers in my book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. At the time I was writing that book—2001—the best estimate I could find for the number of couples involved in the swinging movement was 1.1 million. That number is surely higher today, thanks in part to videos like the one above.

One of the things that I found fascinating about the swinging movement was the silence of religious conservatives concerning these non-aggressively non-monogamous, legally married heterosexuals. The same people that pointed to non-monogamous gay couples as an argument against same-sex marriage couldn't be bothered to address the existence of non-monogamous heterosexual couples—even ones that recruit!

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic:  Dating

"It was evidently a case of love at first sight, for she swam about the new-comer caressingly¦with overtures of affection." Darwin was describing a female mallard duck who had become infatuated with a male pintail duck, a duck of a different species. We all make mistakes in love.

In fact, I have come to think that all birds and mammals have evolved a similar brain system for "attraction," the chemistry of romantic love. You can clearly see this attraction in foxes, for example. As the February blizzards of the northern climes cloth the woods, the meadows and the towns in winter white, the male red fox begins to fixate on a vixen, gazing at her intently. The couple lick and nibble affectionately as they court. They are obsessed with one another, the primary trait of romantic love. Courting beavers swim together in their moonlit pond, tumbling over one another, playfully patting and nuzzling with the same energy, focus and obsession that humans display when they are in love. Rats probably feel this intense attraction for only seconds. Elephants exhibit it for about five days. And people can be "in love" for years. Who we love, how we love, and how long we love differs from one species to the next. But this attraction is universal in birds and mammals.

I write this because today is the beginning of a very festive week in America, a week when many of us will spend more time in nature. So this is my way of saying that the ducks, robins, woodchucks, squirrels, sea gulls and many of the other creatures you may encounter also feel and love.

Posted by: Amiira Behrendt
Topic:  Dating

About two months ago I cleaned out the garage so that finally after two years of living in our home one of our cars could see the inside. The car was very pleased about the whole thing having won the coin toss to see whether mine of my husband’s car would get the honor – his won by the way. So there I am going through my boxes and plastic bins for the first time in years and wondering why the hell I was keeping most of this stuff anyway? What did I think I was going to do with all the concert ticket stubs I've saved and couldn't I have been more discerning about the amount of "doubles" I needed from every roll of film I've developed in the last 20 years? Seriously, there are only ever three or four good photos in a roll anyway, why would you need doubles of all the other ones? I don't have the answer to that but apparently I personally need about four big plastic bins full of the doubles to bad pictures. In the midst of my gigantic purging of stuff that's been following me around for the last however many years I came across a couple of boxes with keepsakes, photos and whatnot from my past relationships. I had shed most of them and only kept a few things from a few relationships and then a little more than a handful from my first marriage. I guess I thought that because I had actually married this person that I should keep more things to mark that time in my life than I had from the guy I had a summer fling with to forget my marriage – that seems about right, doesn’t it? I’m sifting through these memories with such total distance that I really didn’t feel any sentimentality about the things or the men and I wondered if that’s the normal progression? You have a relationship, it ends, you box up the keepsakes thinking you’ll want them later to reminisce or torture yourself with, then you find those things years later and wonder why they’re preventing you car from parking in your garage and you feel like a buffoon for not ditching the stuff sooner. I know couples where one keeping the mementos from previous relationships is actually a point of contention with the other and there are fights, wounded egos and many a ruffled feather. Finding my past loves in boxes made me really wonder, what stuff is it appropriate to keep from your past relationships, how long after the breakup it is appropriate to keep them for and why it bugs the hell out of so many new partners that someone has chosen to keep souvenirs from their exes. And are those keepsakes and memories really a threat to the future of the current relationship you’re in? Anyone??? Unless it's a catalog of homemade sex tapes, what's the threat of having something to look back on?

Posted by: Ed Young
Topic:  Marriage

My wife Lisa and I celebrated our 25th Wedding Anniversary this week. And you know what, we’ve still got it! Lisa’s not just my wife and the mother of our four children; she’s the love of my life and my best friend. That started long before we were married. We were high school sweethearts and dated for six years before we were married. The great marriage we have today began with the foundation we built while we were dating. We had lots of time to get to know each other, to hang out with each other’s family and friends, and to build a deep relationship that has stood the test of time. Our marriage isn’t perfect. Basically, we’re two flawed people who gave our hearts to each other and committed to make a life together.

We’ve been traveling for the past week going to various speaking engagements and have jumped through more time zones than I can remember at this point. So we celebrated our anniversary on the road together. It was a great reminder that marriage is a journey and, to make it last, you’ve got to take it together. I know that sound simplistic, but I think what happens with so many couples is their paths diverge. They stop traveling together down the road of life, they lose touch with each other, they lose their common interests, and then wake up one day wondering who this person is they’re married to. That’s a sad state. I’m so thankful for Lisa, for the bond we share, for the road we’ve traveled together and continue to travel. By God’s grace, we’ve had a pretty good ride so far and I can’t wait to see what’s around the next corner.

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Dating misconceptions

I came across an interesting article on Aish.com, and thought I'd share it.  Here is their list of "dating myths": 

Myth #1 - The more people I go out with, the better chance I have of meeting Mr./Ms. Right.

Myth #2 - The smartest and prettiest women get married first.

Myth #3 - If there were more social events, I would have been married a long time ago.

Myth #4 - If you date a long time, it means you really know what you're doing.

Myth #5 - If things don't click on the first date, you are probably not right for each other.

Myth #6 - First impressions about a blind date are always correct.

Myth #7 - If we date longer, the qualities that bother me about the other person will get worked out.

Myth #8 - The "right" girl will straighten him out!

Myth #9 - It doesn't matter if most of your friends and family don't like the person you're crazy about. You understand him, and your opinion is the only one that matters.

Myth #10 - Love conquers all.

To see a detailed explanation of each myth, check out the full article--definitely worth reading. My favorite myth is #8: No, the right girl will not straighten him out! Only get involved with people you respect to begin with.   

Do you have a dating myth you've stumbled upon?

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic:  Premarital Sex

Andrew Sullivan links to a fascinating piece on his blog today about sex before marriage—apparently the Catholic church was for it before it was against it:

Lawler and Risch say their proposal reflects Catholic tradition. They noted that in the 13th and 14th centuries couples were often first betrothed—a mutual consent to spend the rest of their lives together — before they were actually married. "The first sexual intercourse between the spouses usually followed the betrothal — a fact of the Catholic tradition that has been obscured by the now-taken-for-granted sequence of wedding, marriage, sexual intercourse," Lawler and Risch wrote. They called for a modern-day betrothal, marked by a public ceremony in which the man and woman agree to marry in the future. Then the couple could live together and have sexual relations if they chose. Then the couple would marry. This process would bring the Catholic Church more in line with today's social norms, Lawler and Risch wrote, saying about 5 million unmarried couples already live together in the United States.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Pre-nups – are you in favor or opposed? What do they say about love in today’s world?

There's nothing romantic about a pre-nup. There is something terribly realistic about a pre-nup, however, particularly where there's a large disparity in wealth or income. Concerns about gold diggers--and they can be male or female--are a legit for the obscenely wealthy. But studies show people rarely marry outside their own class, which means the "pre-nups for gold digger" debate is more theoretical than practical.

When a wealth gap exists, though, I do support pre-nups—so long as they're just and fair. There can be no equality, no honesty, and no love if the poor shop girl that married say, a rich Rupert Murdoch wakes up every day knowing that her husband can divorce her and return her to a life of struggle and poverty. (I'm being way dramatic here to make a point—and it's worth noting that the current Mrs. Murdoch was a wealthy exec, not a shopgirl. Again, people rarely marry outside their economic class.) A just pre-nup should protect most of the assets of the wealthy partner while ensuring that the poor partner will remain, after a divorce, a part of the social world he or she married into. Will some gold diggers squeak through? Yes, of course. But that's not a risk we the obscenely wealthy can control for, not matter how many lawyers they hire.

What do they say about love? Only that it's complicated, which is something that love has always been.

Posted by:  Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic: Pre-nups – are you in favor or opposed? What do they say about love in today’s world?

For me, oddly, this is the first difficult question you have asked. It’s not intellectually difficult. People in hunting and gathering societies certainly knew who owned what. Women owned their baskets, digging sticks, and other gear they used in their daily chores, while men owned their bows and arrows and other hunting equipment. Even the couple’s children belonged to either her clan or his clan. So when a couple divorced, property division was not an issue.

But when our forebears began to settle down to farm, they began to develop more rigid rules of who owned what and how this property was to be distributed at divorce or death. Today this issue is even more complex—because now time is money. When a man or woman devotes many years to supporting their partner’s career, they deserve some of the spoils. But how do we measure a person’s real worth? And how can anyone be sure that stipulations in the pre-nup will be appropriate when the actual break up occurs. So I am in favor of pre-nups for those who want them. And I understand why some people need them. But these agreements may not be either safe or fair.

But none of these technicalities are really the issue for me. The issue is that I am still a romantic. And there is something too businesslike, to untrusting, about a pre-nup. I would still prefer to take my chances and walk down that aisle earnestly believing that he and I are one.

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: Pre-nups – are you in favor or opposed? What do they say about love in today’s world?

For thousands of years, Jewish tradition has stressed the importance of a ketubah. It's a marriage contract that stipulates what the husband is obligated to provide in the marriage (namely, food, clothing, and companionship), and it also specifies the sum he has to pay if he divorces his wife. I'm certainly in favor of something like that; an awareness of mutual responsibility.

Still, I think pre-nups today have gotten a bit out of hand.  According to a high-profile divorce lawyer-- who shall remain nameless because he is after all, a lawyer--couples are coming to him wanting to stipulate who will get the children in the event of a divorce.  He has to explain to him that you can't argue over visitation rights when the children haven't been born yet!

If you've got that kind of trepidation, make it easier on everyone: Just don't get married.

Posted by:  Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic: Pre-nups – are you in favor or opposed? What do they say about love in today’s world?

I don’t know what having a prenuptial agreement says about your marriage. I guess it means that forever may not be forever so don’t take my money or my stuff. It’s my stuff and my money and I’m willing to share it with you because I love you and you love me, but if you stop loving me or I have sex with the girl from the flower shop or the guy for that matter you don’t get to have my stuff or my money. I mean you can have some of my stuff and my money if you helped raise our kids but you can’t have all my stuff or my money. So sign this paper that protects my money and my stuff. That’s what I’m assuming a prenup is and I do see how you can really sweep someone off their feet with that sentiment.

Amiira and I didn’t sign one because we didn’t have any money or any stuff. I guess if she had wanted me to sign one I would have. Even if she didn’t have me sign one but she had a ton of money and some really cool stuff and the marriage went to hell in a biscuit box I still wouldn’t have wanted her stuff or her money. I like making my own money and buying my own stuff. I think that the prenup is a cynical piece of work but probably in some cases, like the young marriage of a poptarlett and her b-boy, hanger on husband it might make sense. But even then if you have to sign a prenup maybe you should just stay boyfriend and girlfriend that way you can keep on sharing your money and your stuff. You can still buy each other rings, throw yourself a party and take a fancy vacation to celebrate your non legally binding union with your money and your stuff. Or why not instead of a prenup do a marriage contract for five to ten years with the option to renew annually like a lease that separates your money and your stuff from their money and their stuff? Just spitballing ideas over here.