The Great Mate Debate

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Conversation with:   Dan Savage

First of all, I love the irony Dan points out: that he, supposedly "the sex-obsessed sex-advice columnist" should come out in defense of sexless marriages--whereas I think a sexless marriage usually indicates a much bigger problem.  On the other hand, this is only an irony if you buy into the pro-sex vs. anti-sex dichotomy--which I personally don't.  In my experience, very few people are actually "anti-sex" or "sex-negative" as Dan puts it; rather, this debate is about the meaning we ascribe to sexuality.  Does sexuality bring people closer and enable the ultimate in mutual giving?  Or is it more like sneezing? 

People disagree about the meaning of sex and so naturally, emotions run high.  This may explain why Dan falsely attributes to me a belief in "all the many hoops a married person should be asked to jump through before he's even allowed to contemplate an affair."  Also he claims that I treat "the spouse that wants to have sex... as the 'problem spouse.'" In fact I did not suggest anything of the kind.   What I did suggest was that both members of the couple sounded like they needed help.  If I singled anyone out, it was the wife, wondering if there were medical issues involved in her low sex drive: "Has his wife had her TSH (thyroid levels) checked?....  It sounds like he is closing off in response to her closing off..."

In marriage, giving is not just about clearing the dishes.  If you are totally unaware of or unresponsive to your spouses' needs--whether physical or otherwise--that's a big problem.  It's a lack of consideration.  Just because I don't think a man should cheat doesn't mean that I'm treating him as a "problem."  Actually, I'm trying to avoid creating more problems. 

In such a case as Dan presents, where a husband's needs are totally ignored, it seems to me that there are deeper issues that need to be addressed first.   This marriage as Dan presents it suffers from major communication problems, and the spouses have lost the ability to be vulnerable to one another.  That cuts to the core of the marriage itself.  Their sexual disconnect is just the tip of the iceberg, if I may be permitted to mix my metaphors. 

Dan asks me, "At what point is a husband or wife allowed to stop banging his or her head against the wall and seek intimacy elsewhere?"  I'm actually not much of a fan of head-banging to begin with, but if you're asking when it's time to give up on a marriage, I just don't see this as my role.  To tell a stranger when to stay in a marriage, or to give them "permission" to cheat on their spouse? Chemistry's moniker of "expert" notwithstanding, I'm certainly not expert enough to be able to divine from such little information what is really going on with such a couple.  I would have to talk to both the husband and the wife, in much greater detail, before even coming remotely close to understanding their situation.

But Dan feels that  "sometimes people have to cheat—for their own sanity and, ironically, to preserve their marriages."  Is this based on what people tell themselves, or is this based on a study?   If there is such a study I would be very interested to review it, since for years I've been reading about how "affairs can help a marriage"  in the women's magazines. And I've yet to see a single study substantiating this claim.  Helen Gurley Brown, for one, made a career out of telling young women to "keep married men as pets," but needless to say, the wife and children of aforementioned "pets" tend not to find it as thrilling.

If people want to have sexless marriages, I personally think this challenges what marriage should be about, but I'm not going to criticize.  I suppose that what people don't do within the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business.  But the moment you say that one spouse is angling to cheat, then we're objectively talking about a marriage with a problem.

What is this debate really about?  Some of us see divorce as preferable to cheating, while others see cheating as preferable to divorce. The difference really turns on how we define marriage. I think that when you get married, you are essentially making a declaration of devotion to another person, and asking  that society recognize your devotion. So if someone tells me that he doesn't want to be burdened by being devoted--and working through the challenges that come with this--and still for whatever reason he doesn't want to divorce, then I would ask him, why? 

What is gained by remaining married while you're cheating and lying?  If marriage does not mean devotion, then what does it mean?   

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Missing Ed, Responding to Greg and Amiira

I'm a little under-the-weather today, which is why my post is so late and will be brief--well, brief for me. Two quick Friday items...

First, I wanna say how much I'm missing Ed Young right now. I'm sure we could get into a fabulous argument about disgraced Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idablow). He'd say something about how this is what you get when you tolerate sexual sin, and I'd point out that Craig was about as intolerant of sexual sin—well, other people's sexual sin—as a man can possibly be. Spectacular crack-ups like Craigs are what you get when you create or buy into a culture that tells gay men and lesbians that Jesus hates 'em and that it's better to live a closeted life than to live openly and honestly and with some integrity.

Second, a quick response to Greg and Amiira Behrendt... who responded today to me and Wendy...

I’m being sincere when I say. “What the hell is a marriage then if you have to cheat to stay in it?” I’m not directing this at Dan because I’m sure many people believe that, what I’m saying is I believe that it’s all totally avoidable if you have the capacity to be honest with yourself and your partner from the get go.

What kind of marriage is it? Why a dysfunctional one, of course, a marriage that's messy and unsatisfactory and complicated... and may still be worth preserving anyway. Yes, cheating is evil—but so is divorce and splitting up. There are times when cheating is the lesser evil. Not everyone is in a financial position to split up over sex. There may be kids involved. Should a couple together 30 or 40 years just pack it in because one person decides that he or she (it's usually she, though) isn't interested in sex anymore? Would it really be better for the couple—emotionally, financially—and their children and grandchildren if the husband tore apart their home, ended their marriage, and destroyed their finances?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stick to my guns here: there are times when cheating, while evil, is the lesser evil. And marriages with a "do what you need to do" understanding are more common than many seem willing to acknowledge. I would hope that Greg and Amiira aren't there after seven years together; my boyfriend and I aren't there after 13 years together. But if you check back with us at 37 and 43 years—and if we're in a position to be honest about it—we might be there then.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic: Labor Day Weekend

It’s a special Friday, the end of summer, the beginning of the new year: for me. Perhaps I was in graduate school too long, taught too many college classes, or still fraternize with too many academics. But for me the year begins on September 4th, not January 1st. For weeks, I have been hoping that summer would never end. And the past few days I have been obsessively recounting what I did this summer, reassuring myself that I have sucked in enough summer sounds and smells and sights. I loved the Fourth of July, watching the fireworks in the rain. I loved my early morning jogs through Central Park, the Greta Garbo movies, the Mostly Mozart festival, the crickets, the fire flies and the glorious white peaches. But as we hurdle irrevocably toward September 4th, I also feel a new excitement—for pumpkins, kicking leaves, my favorite autumn jacket, straighter hair and evenings at all the little off, off, off Broadway theaters I go to with a pal. I wonder what I will think or do this year that I have never thought or done before. On major new beginnings of the calendar cycle, the ancient Mayans used to extinguish their hearth fires, then pass a single new flame from one home to another—rekindling their lives together. I feel we are doing that this weekend, taking that last dunk in the sea, packing for college, picnicking with family or friends to hale the end and the beginning—looking forward, together.

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Conversation with Wendy Shalit and Dan Savage

Amiira and I have been following the “debate” that Wendy and Dan have been having about sexless marriages and I have to say both parties make good points.

Wendy asserted…

A marriage without intimacy is indeed a poor imitation of a marriage, but to me the next step would be to make a serious effort to seek help. Have they gone to marital counseling? Sex therapy?

Which I not only agreed with but said as much while wearing a neat suit on my low rated talk show. Sex is a very important ingredient in my marriage and that’s why I agree that without sex my marriage would seem flat.

But Dan countered…

I don't believe that a marriage without intimacy is necessarily a poor imitation of a marriage. There are lots of loving, mutually fulfilling and completely sexless marriages out there.

As to Wendy's point about all the many hoops a married person should be asked to jump through before he's even allowed to contemplate an affair... well, what if someone has tried all of that and it didn't do any good?

And I agreed with him too. Amiira and I have gone through dry spells in our seven years together and I don’t remember being less happy. I love sex but it’s not why I married Amiira. It is possible I think to not have sex and be in a great relationship. But I do think that Wendy is right if one person is wildly unhappy the other person owes it to them to take a look at what’s under the hood. Usually a person’s self esteem is tied up in their sexual desire and when it’s not being met they get sad, resentful and angry which we all know is not hot and then the other person is even less likely to have sex with them so counseling is a sound idea. If counseling or the scented candles don’t work I don’t see the point in remaining unhappy or doing something that would or could crush another person.

Dan writes…

Eventually people get sick of asking, and give up—because they've tried everything, and nothing has worked. And then they start making allowances and adjustments, and they find themselves doing things that they never imagined they would—like cheating.

This stumps me and I’m being sincere when I say. “What the hell is a marriage then if you have to cheat to stay in it?” I’m not directing this at Dan because I’m sure many people believe that, what I’m saying is I believe that it’s all totally avoidable if you have the capacity to be honest with yourself and your partner from the get go. Before Amiira and I got married we talked about marriage and about sex. I told Amiira that I was looking forward to a long and healthy marriage that included an adventurous sex life. Now should our sex life fizzle out for whatever reason, I wanted to be able to have an open dialogue about it. So we have an agreement, an escape clause if you will, that out of profound love and respect for our partnership in all of it’s many incarnations of fantastic to crappy and everything in between we will talk about having the urge to cheat before ever coming close to acting on that urge. We will work on our sex life, our marriage, our everything until all is exhausted and should none of those valiant efforts make one iota of difference… then we will SPLIT UP or amicably and jointly decide on an appropriate solutions before we would betray each other by cheating.

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

In 1999, Vanity Fair quoted an unnamed source who smeared me with the dark accusation that I was a "serial dater."  It felt unjust, and not just because I was 23 at the time and had gone out with about three guys in my entire life thus far. I wondered:  Aren't most people "serial daters" to the extent that they're seeking to find the right person?  I called my parents to vent, and that's when Dad the economist mused,

"Better a serial dater than a parallel dater!"  He did have a point. 

On the other hand, once upon a less enlightened time, women used to "parallel" date all over town; it was rare to have merely one "beau."  Of course, having a beau entailed collecting chocolate and flowers more than it involved sexual favors, so it really wasn't as horribly torrid as it seems.  (Or perhaps it was, with all that mystery and so many barriers to desire.)  Some would argue that the lack of physical involvement was key, and it explains how young couples were able to  shop around and explore their options with minimal heartbreak. 

Similarly, among those dating in a traditional Jewish context today, you can also find that parallel dating has a small following. Normally, when young men and women are fixed up, they are set up just one at a time.  However, in unusual situations where a man is coming in from out of town for the purposes of dating, he becomes (drumroll, please) something called an "out-of-towner," and someone for whom normal rules are bent just a teeny bit. Thus, a minority among the religious will defend an "out of town" boy being set up on two dates with two separate girls, shocking as this may seem. (This is before he knows which one will work out; I've never heard of anyone continuing with two girls simultaneously beyond a first date.)

Out-of-towners such as these will have their defenders (usually, their mothers) and their detractors (the girls) but I confess I've never been a fan of this practice, even among those who minimize physical involvement before marriage. I still think it's hard to assess if you can really open up to a person when your mind is "out of town," so to speak, and when you're constantly comparing to another.  Do what works for you, obviously, but I think first and foremost, intimacy requires focus. 

So I guess Vanity Fair was right, and I'm simply an unrepentent fan of serial dating. 

Although, here's wishing that the "series" will end for you very soon, and that you meet someone fabulous. From in or out of town.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

I with Greg and Amiira—in the agreement sense of "with," not the dating sense. Ahem.

Dating more than one person at one time is acceptable—hell, it ought to be encouraged. But I agree with G&A when they say that it's not kosher to sleep with more than one person at one time. I would only add this: You can date and sleep with more than one person at a one time—heck, you can sleep with a cast of thousands—if everyone is fully informed. It's fine to be a complete slut (a term I apply equally to males and females), provided you don't exploit the commonly shared assumption that all dating-and-screwing relationships are exclusive. Sluts should seek out sluts (they're not scarce—hell, one may be coming to an airport restroom near you), and leave the virginal and pure for the virginal and pure.

Getting back to that commonly held assumption, i.e. that a dating-and-screwing relationship can assumed to be exclusive: That's an extremely foolish assumption to make. Lots of people date and screw more than one person at a time. So people that value exclusivity shouldn't tell themselves, "Hey, since he/she wants to take this dating relationship to the next level—sleeping with me—we must be exclusive!" That's not an assumption you should make, but a conversation you should have. "So you want jump in bed with me? That's nice. But that means you're not sleeping with anyone else, right?" A simple chat to make sure you're on the same page vis-a-vis dating/screwing more than one person at time can prevent a lot of heartbreak—and the odd sexually transmitted infection.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

Well, as I am not in the “should” business, I’ll go with the question: “How many people can a person date at one time?” I suppose the answer is: as many as you can manage and still keep your sanity, your wallet, your job, your self respect, and your believability…..and still feed the cat. More seriously, I find it exceedingly difficult to have more than one relationship cooking at once. But there are times when I have not been sure which of several relationships would develop, so I had to keep all going simultaneously. It was exhausting, though. I remember too vividly one birthday I had many years ago when I received flowers from four men, all lovely souls. I had to hide all four bouquets in different closets, and switch them around as each arrived. It was a madhouse when I dressed. No, give me the simple life: one boy with whom I can share all. It's practical too. Indeed, my feelings on this subject were nicely summed up by an aphorism I saw one morning as I walked to the 68th street Lexington Avenue subway in New York. On the pavement, in chalk, someone had scrawled, “The man who can’t decide between two women loses both of them.”

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic: How many people can a person/should a person date at one time?

Amiira: Do they mean including your husband or not?

Greg: This is awkward.

Amiira: I would have to say three to four would be the ideal number of people to date at the same time. But that’s assuming you can find a few people worth dating at the same time.

Greg: When we started dating we were both seeing a few other people…

Amiira: A few being three or four.

Greg: Yes, three or four. We were both super dating when we met. Not that we were super daters as in better than others that are dating but just that we were both “dating” in the super traditional way versus hooking up or hanging out with people in that particular moment in time.

Amiira: And I should also clarify that when dating these three or four people we weren’t having sexual relations with any of them. We were both getting to know a few people and not letting sex cloud the issue.

Greg: Sex clouds things like crazy so yes, we were not having sexual intercourse with any of the people we were dating. We were dating like a couple of prudish little ladies. I actually carried a parasol.

Amiira: And we wore pretty little cardigans with pearl buttons.

Greg: It’s an important point to make because by not having sex quickly with these people we were dating we actually took the time to decide how we felt about these them outside of being attracted to them at whatever level we were.

Amiira: That’s completely true but the other interesting thing about casually dating a few people at the same time versus just dating one person is that you have something to compare each date to. Did I have as good a time at Putt Putt with Slappy Jones as I did when I went bowling with Jumper Houlihan?

Greg: What’s wrong with you?

Amiira: What?

Greg: What the f**k kind of names are those? What kind of guys were you going out with?

Amiira: You’re just jealous that my fictitious dates for the hypothetical example that I’m building here have spectacularly ridiculous names.

Greg: You’re lucky I saved you from poorly named clowns that take you on fake sporting dates.

Amiira: We’re drifting. The point I’m making is that if you date a few people at a time and are open about the fact that your status is that you’re “Currently Dating” you will find it quite illuminating. In fact, when your calendar isn’t just booked with one person that you will actually have the opportunity to slow down the dating process. Most people blow relationships by going too fast.

Greg: Dating is actually a preventative strike against blowing it… and highly recommended.

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Is it OK for couples to keep big secrets (credit-card debt, plastic surgery, etc) as long as they don’t involve infidelity?

Some secrets come out anyway, so you may as well 'fess up.  In the case of a new nose, it can be awkward when a child comes along, and this baby is in possession of a nose that looks very unlike either parent's. When compared to a suspicion that the mailman was involved, confessing to a mere nose job can be far less embarrassing.

Other secrets are part of your intimate emotional space. Not everything has to be told if it is significant--nor for it to be significant.  Indeed some of the most special things can be kept private and often that way, they remain so. 

But in terms of the secrets we are not proud of, the things we are ashamed of, sharing these with a partner can deepen the relationship and make it real.  Realness obviously fosters intimacy, and it is also what makes a romantic relationship different from the relationship between you and your hairstylist. (Perhaps a poor example since some people, apparently, tell their hairdresser everything.) 

We've already talked about infidelity, which in my opinion needs to be disclosed.  As for the rest, my rule of thumb is the following: If a matter does not affect your partner, and it is not really weighing on you--such that you could either share or not, and you don't feel strongly either way--then it's probably less important to share. 

But if the fear is that our secret somehow make us unlovable, then perhaps paradoxically, it becomes more important to share--and to be reassured that we are still truly loved.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Is it OK for couples to keep big secrets (credit-card debt, plastic surgery, etc) as long as they don’t involve infidelity?

I've often said... and I still believe... that a relationship is not a deposition. Not only are you not required to answer every question truthfully, no relationship could long survive the kind of "full disclosure" reveal-a-thon that so many backers of "honesty" seem to support. All healthy, lasting, long-term relationship are built on a foundation of lies—from the outset. When you first meet someone you don't present your honest & true self to them, warts and all, so that they can make an informed choice about dating you. Nope, you present the best possible version of yourself, a sort of Potemkin boyfriend/girlfriend. And then, if the person sticks around, if he or she falls for this idealized person you were pretending to be, you're really stuck—for the rest of your life you have to live up to the lies you told about yourself, you have to try to be the wonderful, perfect, wholly fictional person you were on that first date or during those first few months.

And here's the magic: if you live up to the lies long enough... you can make the lies come true. Relationships can sometimes make us better people because we have to make good on our deceitful, lying presentation of ourselves.

However... and you knew there'd be a "but"...

There are lies that involve stuff your lover doesn't need or want to know, and then there are lies involving stuff that your love has a right to know. I would definitely file "credit card debt" under "right to know," since anyone that marries you can be held legally liable for your credit card debt. A little plastic surgery long before you met? I would file that under ""doesn't need to know" as it has no impact, no consequences, on your spouse or your relationship. Used to be a man? Right to know. Had gay sex once in college? Doesn't need to know. Family mobbed up? Right to know. Etc.

The trouble, of course, is that no completely exhaustive list separating "doesn't need to know" items from "right to know" items has ever been compiled. We all have to make up our own, and we have to use our common sense when we debate disclosure v. omission. And that's where the trouble comes in. If I've learned anything writing a sex-advice column lo these many years, it's that common sense is lacking. If I ruled the world I'd have it put in the water supply, like freakin' fluoride.