The Great Mate Debate

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: So long, Farewell, Auf Weidersehen, Goodbye.

I'm sorry to disappoint this commenter. He assumed, as I failed to say my goodbyes yesterday, that I would be seizing control of the Great Mate Debate. Alas, that's not the case. It's just that I, like Greg & Amiira, was just slow to get my goodbye post up.

I'm going to miss everyone--Wendy, Greg & Amiira, Helen, and most of all—believe it or not—Ed Young. How often does an gay sex-advice columnist and atheist get to go toe-to-toe with the leader of a conservative Christian mega-church on issues of sex and morality? Ed bowed out weeks earlier, of course, but I will always treasures the moments we spent blogging together. So I want to thank Chemistry.com for their matchmaking skills in bringing us all together for this conversation (to say nothing of their patience—this isn't my first late post).

The one thing I hope everyone reading takes away from this debate is this: decent thinking people—people like Wendy, Greg & Amiira, Helen—are all over the map on sex, romance, and relationship issues. That proves something I think each and every one of us knows to be true but secretly wishes weren't true: We ultimately have to figure out this sex/dating/mating stuff for ourselves. It would be nice—it would be a relief—if there was a final authority, an Uber Expert, someone out there dispensing one-size-fits-all wisdom about sex, dating, and mating. It would be so much easier if there was one expert that had all the answers. But that person isn't out there—that expert hasn't been invented yet. That expert wasn't blogging on this website, doesn't write my column or Wendy's books, and isn't hiding out in any of the books in Ed's bible. Instead we're stuck with arguments and muddles and debates, greater or lesser. We listen and participate—and then embrace what works for us, discard what doesn't, and get on with things.

The danger for experts and non-experts alike is the assumption that what works for me not only could work for everyone else, but must. Well, it doesn't. So as you continue to figure out sex, romance, and mating for yourself, dear reader, I trust that you'll embrace the stuff that works for you and ditch the rest. If something I wrote here worked for you, great. If it didn't, chuck it.

Thanks again to the Chemistry.com crew—Gina and Janet particularly—and to my fellow mate debaters.

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic: Goodbye.

Once again I was on the road and forgot to blog. Perhaps it was intentional as this appears to be the last one for our tenure here at Chemistry.com. I have enjoyed this more than I thought would. It just seems like there is so much negativity and bullying on the internet. But i felt there was much to take from all the participants and to Dan, Wendy and Helen we really dug writing with you. I know this was supposed to be a heated debate sometimes but in all honesty when it comes to relationships there are a few ways to skin a cat but it's up to you to find it. Just because I don't agree with Dan sometimes doesn't mean I don't find his opinion totally valuable. When I turned to my friend at work and told her "He's just not that into you." I was simply voicing my opinion. Amiira and I listen to what you say and then respond based on what's worked for us. I hope we've been helpful. I know I've learned some reading your comments. Yes Lloyd I'm a "Metrosexual" although I prefer to think of it as just having class.
Continue Rocking! XOXO
Greg and Amiira

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Topic: One Last Question, and Goodbye for Now

It's interesting that Dan considered Madonna's recent purchase to be a sign of her marriage's strength.  I suppose he could be right, but the fact that their "marital aid" was exhibited in a see-through bag for all to see--not to mention the nature of the toy in question--makes the whole business a bit more complicated in my view.  To me it's more plausible that Madonna was trying to send a message to the general public at the expense of Guy Ritchie.

I could be wrong about that. But I certainly have seen an increasing trend of people trying to "send a message" to strangers, often at the expense of a loved one.  At the tamer end, there are jokes about socks being left on the floor; at the extreme, one's spouse is publicly humilated for the entertainment of others.

Brings to mind a question:  Does the person you're dating bring out the best in you?  A simple yet crucial question.  I've seen cases of really great, intelligent people who, when put together, can't seem to do anything except make fun of others.  That's in the heady stage of intoxication, mind you; when that stage wears off, then they tend to make fun of each other.  Have you ever seen this, or experienced it? If it's happening to you, you might want to consider getting out of the relationship.

Or conversely, if someone doesn't seem right for you "on paper" but your gut tells you that you're a better person when you're with him or her--well then, hang on to that person, and don't let go.

I guess that would be my parting message.  Yes, it's hard to believe but today is my last blog.  These five months have gone by so quickly.   Needless to say, it's been really fun and interesting to hear all the different perspectives whizzing around on this blog.   I'm definitely going to miss all of you--yes, even you Dan!

So don't be strangers, and hope we keep in touch.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Inter-faith dating--when does it work? When doesn’t it?

Inter-faith dating only works when both halves of a couple wear their faiths lightly, like flouncy summer dresses, and not tightly, like a pair of canvas straightjackets.

And... uh... that's really all I have to say about this topic.

Because when it comes to religion, that most sensitive of subjects, I happen to agree with Christopher Hitchens, that most insensitive of writers: religion pretty much poisons everything. I've personally seen religion poison a number of relationships. One half of a previously content couple suddenly "gets," or comes down with, a bad case of religion. Pick a religion, any religion. It could be a born-again Christian experience or the sudden realization that conservative Islam is only true path or a mysterious pull toward the dubious charms of Mormonism or Scientology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

When one half of a couple suddenly gets passionate about religion, the other half—perfectly acceptable before the first half came down with a bad case of religion—is no longer viewed as a partner, but as a lost soul in need of saving, a heathen in need of conversion, someone who isn't going to heaven or paradise with you. Seeing as how many—that's "many," not "all"—religious people regard the irreligiousness of complete strangers as personal affront, is it any wonder that a mate's irreligiousness or a lack of religious fervor can destroy a relationship?

So inter-faith dating... I'm all for it. So long as we're talking a mild case of "faith," and not a fatal one.

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic:  Inter-faith dating – when does it work? When doesn’t it?

As it happens, I actually covered this topic already when I took a question from a reader a few months ago, and also touched on it again in my answer about interracial dating.  Haven't changed my mind a whole lot since I wrote those blogs.

Which brings to mind a question a fifty-year-old man once asked me, angrily, after hearing a talk of mine:  "Do you think that when you're older, that you'll change your mind?"

It was certainly a hard question to answer.  "Well, if I thought I was wrong and on the verge of changing my mind, I suppose I would just change my mind now and not wait til I got older," was what I believe I said.  Then after I answered his question it dawned on me that he wanted me to change my mind when I got older. 

Truth to tell, I actually like changing my mind.  What's the point of life if you're always clinging tenaciously to the same position, day after day, without caring about whether or not it's true?  If I'm wrong about something, then I definitely want to know it. 

In terms of elaborating on what I already wrote on interfaith dating, I'd simply add that the ability to develop and learn is crucial in any relationship, but especially, I think, in an interfaith one.  Could you go on a journey together and explore the truth of another's religious faith?  Or is that something you find threatening? And do you know why you believe what you believe?

Very often interfaith dating is not actually interfaith, but more accurately, dating between two people who do not believe in the religion they were born into.  If they've examined their own religion and rejected it, then that is one thing; but if they've never examined it in the first place, I think it's worth doing so in a systematic way before marrying someone of another faith. 

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic: Inter-faith dating – when does it work? When doesn’t it?

Flexibility is, I think, the ticket to inter-faith dating. If you can’t drum up any compassion for your partner's point of view, you just have to go with flexibility. As religious beliefs are not rational, but based on faith, it will be hopeless to reason with him or her. People just believe what they believe... and that's that. So I think the real key is the great art of keeping your mouth shut—about their views, and about your views. And when it comes time to honor their traditions, such as during Ramadan or at Christmas, just go with the flow. Every religion has its virtues and you should be able to find something about their beliefs that you can respect and embrace. I have found a great deal to admire in just about all religions. It’s too bad more people don’t practice what they preach.

Posted by: Greg and Amiira Behrendt
Topic: Inter-faith dating – when does it work? When doesn’t it?

There’s a long and short answer to this question. The long one being the exploration of all religions to see where there are compatibilities between any of the faiths and where there are clearly impossibilities. Sadly, we don’t have the time to research that and frankly, you the reader probably aren’t looking for a hundred-page blog detailing as such. Anyone that interested in the tops is probably going to haul their cookies down to Barnes and Noble before they visit us here at The Great Mate Debate.

Since neither of us are theologians we can only offer our own personal thoughts on Inter-faith dating or even dating in general. To us it is simple though Religion generally is not. When you put your relationship before or equal to your faith, Interfaith-dating works. When you put your faith or Religion before your relationship, it might end up being at the expense of your relationship. Clearly we’re interpreting “Inter-faith dating” in this question as serious dating/relationships. If we’re talking about casual dating then faith generally has the upper hand but once you are serious about coupling with someone long term, a choice has to be made. Now, we’ll probably be filleted for saying that but ultimately there is a choice to be made if you profoundly love someone with whom your faith conflicts. At some point you have to decide which you cannot live without - a strict adherence to your faith or the experience of profound love and the future life with that person. And at some point you should consider whether your God or personal faith would have you sacrifice your true love to remain devout. Faith to us is something that lives in your heart not a prescribed set of rules and restrictions but again, that is our intrepretation.

Let it be known that neither of us are Religious people yet we are both spiritual individuals who have a sense of faith that guides us. As luck would have it, our faith and spirituality aren’t in conflict with each other’s so we’ve got it easy. HOWEVER, there is no Religion or faith that could be more precious to us than being with each other nor make us better people than we are when we are united together. We both truly believe that and as such, we can only speculate that were we in the situation of being poorly matched faith wise, that together we would have to create something unique to us. It would be our own thing that would combine the best parts of our faiths to form something new that allows us to continue aspects of our beliefs as well as have a future together.

And we would call our new faith Carlos.

Posted by: Dan Savage
Topic: Are two people really and truly meant to stay together forever…or should we embrace more of a serial long-term relationship model for happiness?

Whether or not we're inclined to embrace it, the serial model of long-term relationships has arrived. We can refuse to give it a hug but people aren't going to feel obligated to stay in crappy marriages for the rest of their lives as a result. Once upon a time—before antibiotics and effective medical care and exploding life expectancies—people were willing tough out a bad marriage, in the hopes that the next cholera outbreak or influenza epidemic carried off that hated spouse. Those days are over, gone, pffft.

But if we want to make it possible for more people to stay together forever—and I'm a fan of long-term relationships, and toughing out the rough patches, etc.—we need to change our expectations.

Can I talk about infidelity again? Try to shut me up about it: We talk about monogamy the way we talk about virginity. You're a virgin until you have sex for the first time and then—pffft!—you're not a virgin anymore. You're monogamous until you have sex for the first time with someone else and then—pffft!—you're not monogamous anymore. You can lose your monogamy just like you lost your virginity.

I think we should encourage people to view monogamy the way we view sobriety. You're sober, you fall off the wagon, but you're not necessarily always and forever drunk from that moment on. You can sober back up—you can get back on the wagon, you can get back with the program. We should tell people that they can "monogamy back up" too, that they recover their monogamous status, by getting back on the monogamy wagon.

Cheating happens—it happens a lot. We should be realistic about that. Yet it's often the same people that bemoan the culture of divorce insist that insist cheating is an unforgivable betrayal and that divorce is the only appropriate response. If we want to see less divorce we shouldn't encourage people to regard cheating as a marriage killer. Because guess what? We're not wired for monogamy—even Bill Bennett, family values crusader, admits as much in his book The Broken Hearth. If we're not good at monogamy and we're not wired for it... doesn't it seem a bit nuts to make it the foundation upon which we build our relationships? So long as we insist on doing that, well, we're asking for it.

Posted by: Dr. Helen Fisher
Topic: Are two people really and truly meant to stay together forever…or should we embrace more of a serial long-term relationship model for happiness?

In hunting and gathering societies many men and women have two or three spouses during the course of their lives, while others make one enduring partnership instead. Humans are flexible in this aspect of mating and reproduction. Both strategies are rare among mammalian species, however. Only 3% form any kind of pairbond at all. Most would adhere to the old English proverb: “wedlock; padlock.” Yet monogamy is a hallmark of men and women in cultures around the world. Even in societies where polygyny (many wives or harem building) is touted, most men have only one wife: monogamy.

But which style is more natural, serial or life long monogamy? I would say that some people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining a life long marriage while others do it quite easily--for both genetic and environmental reasons. And from the Darwinian perspective, both strategies can be biologically sensible. If you marry for life and have three children, that’s productive in the Darwinian sense. If you marry three times and have one child by each partner instead, this also has evolutionary payoffs. But either way, almost 90% of Americans eventually marry. Marriage is a great adventure and we carry deep within our brains the circuits to fall in love and wed.

Posted by: Wendy Shalit
Topic: Are two people really and truly meant to stay together forever…or should we embrace more of a serial long-term relationship model for happiness?

Recently, I flew out to attend a friend's wedding. Of course, all weddings are special in their own way but this one was extra special because the bride had survived cancer. Everyone in attendance was so touched to be there, and to share these wonderful moments with the happy couple.

One highlight for me was when the elderly grandparents of the groom took the dance floor and did a graceful Foxtrot.  They looked to be in their mid-eighties and all the 300 guests stopped and  marveled at how in love the pair still looked.   

The day after, I cornered this adorable grandma at an after-wedding celebration, fetched her a Coke, and asked her for tips on staying married.  She replied that "it's very simple, actually"; things change, and "nothing in marriage is as you expect it," but you just have to hang on.  "If you just go with it, you change together and you'll see, it's worth it."

I was surprised--and a little sad--by her later telling someone else that I was her "favorite" guest, because really, I hadn't talked to her for very long, nor done anything particularly special for her.  All I did was ask for her opinion! Which apparently, no one had done for a long time.

We can endlessly debate whether we're hardwired for serial monogamy or fidelity, because evidence points in both directions. It always will, because that's where our free will and our humanity comes in.  What it comes down to, I think, is that love is a choice.