Dr. David Ley discusses relationships — monogamous and not.
According to the animal kingdom, and research with creatures from insects and fish to birds, apes, lions, tigers and bears (oh my), monogamy is exceedingly uncommon in the natural world. In fact, with advances in the technology of genetic testing, many of the species previously lauded as being lifelong monogamous, are now known to actually have many sexual encounters outside their seemingly monogamous partnerships. While they may maintain long-term pair bonds with a single partner, they do not maintain sexual fidelity. Swans, geese, and eagles, species long romantically described as monogamous, have now been revealed to have engaged in nonmonogamous sexual activity in as many as one out of four births. In fact, according to some researchers, it’s more newsworthy when evidence of monogamy and sexual fidelity is actually supported in the animal kingdom.
Among mammals, only a very few species live in seemingly monogamous arrangements, and fewer still maintain sexual fidelity within those relationships. Man certainly does not seem to be one of them. There is increasing evidence that many men are not biologically or psychologically disposed to sexual monogamy.
When one considers the seeming universality of the expectation of monogamy in today’s world (or at least the world presented by Western media), it is perhaps surprising that monogamy has not always been the expected state for man. Despite the vehemence with which many Christians defend monogamy, many men in the Bible, including David and Solomon, were far from monogamous. In fact, whenever conservative marriage advocates espouse “traditional marriage,” I always have to laugh – even in Christianity, traditional marriage included polygyny (a marriage arrangement with one man and multiple wives), and was not explicitly limited to a monogamous arrangement between “one man and one woman.”
Throughout the history of man, most societies practiced a range of relationships, with monogamy and polygyny the most common, and only rare societies that mandated monogamy. Historically, polygyny has been one of the most common and prevalent forms of marriage, worldwide, with evidence that the acceptability of marriage of a single male to multiple females has been present in all human cultures through history. (Polyandry, a single woman with multiple male husbands has been very rare, and typically tied to unique economic circumstances.) Currently, less than 20 percent of world cultures require monogamy, the overwhelming majority allowing polygamous marriages. Less common were societies that practiced polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands (which reportedly were found in less than 1 percent of worldwide societies).
Throughout history, many powerful men have eschewed monogamy for the privilege of having multiple female partners, typically through having multiple wives, concubines and mistresses. It was not all men who could support multiple wives, but usually only the wealthiest, most powerful men who could attract, protect, and provide for multiple wives and their children. But, in modern Western culture, men with multiple wives are seen as sinners and lawbreakers – in America, bigamy and polygyny is illegal, and was deemed a danger to society by the US Supreme court when it was outlawed in Utah in the 19th century.
Monogamy is enforced by law in the United States with criminal adultery statutes, laws against bigamy and in child custody laws. Infidelity is punishable by law in twenty-five states, and is subject to civil lawsuit in eight. While violations of such laws are rarely prosecuted, statutory penalties against these crimes range from two years’ imprisonment to commitment for treatment of insanity.
Even when partners do not sexually violate marriage expectations, with divorce rates as high as 60 percent in some cases, monogamy has less meaning than it once did. Serial monogamy is now the truer term, where individuals are monogamous as long as they are in a given relationship, but move on to other relationships, sexual and otherwise, once that relationship ends. Why then is monogamy the expected, required, and enforced marital ideal? Marriage laws, according to most experts, have more to do with contract and property law. Monogamy offers important assurances regarding parentage that support and clarify inheritance laws and precedents. Some writers and historians suggest that monogamy represents a political and economic compromise, between the needs of the powerful and the need to have a self-sufficient, satisfied, and motivated workforce.
Regardless, monogamy works, or at least the idea of monogamous marriage works. A commitment and bond between two partners meets needs for social, emotional, and physical intimacy, as well as financial, familial, and pragmatic needs in ways that no other relationship strategy has as effectively satisfied in current society. But, despite the effectiveness of a seemingly monogamous relationship, history shows that the ideal of monogamy, with the expectation of sexual and emotional fidelity, is not apparently suited for everyone.
Currently, debates over gay marriage have raised the spectre of polygyny, with arguments that legalizing gay marriage could open the door to polygyny, with the fear of significant social consequences. Reality shows like Sister Wives, and HBO’s Big Love have elevated public dialogue and legal issues around the practice of polygyny. In my home state of New Mexico, an 85 year-old man in a rural town was recently arrested for bigamy, after he apparently became lonely during a very long separation from his wife, and married another woman – I don’t know the details of the case, but wonder how this marriage came to lead to criminal charges in the first place – where is the harm and threat to community here? Why does society fear polygyny, and believe that it poses a risk to the structure of our culture and society?
I’m not arguing here as to whether polygyny is healthy or not, nor am I discussing or denying the negative effects that polygyny has on women, including young girls. I am interested in discussing the question of why, if there truly is a patriarchal control of society, why did these men supposedly in charge give up the historical sexual privilege of polygyny?
A piece of the answer, and evidence for the cultural “cost-benefit” explanation of monogamy is revealed in recently published anthropological research. In “The puzzle of monogamous marriage” by Henrich, Boyd and Richerson, the authors present evidence that monogamy actually has significant social benefits. In polygyny, powerful men gather the most desirable women for themselves. And less powerful men “go hungry,” wifeless. In fact, throughout human history, while 80% of women have reproduced, only 40% of men have (this is a fascinating statistic, that I really invite you to think about. Imagine the downstream implications of this, as it affects which men in history reproduced, and how their characteristics were passed down to us today). Those men who couldn’t compete, didn’t get to have even a single wife, and thus didn’t have children. So, what did those men do with their time? According to Henrich, Boyd and Richerson, it appears they got into lots of trouble. Societies where polygyny has been (and still is) practiced, have higher rates of crimes involving males, especially violent crime. Apparently, if you can’t get a wife, what’s the point of following society’s rules?
But just because the men ostensibly in charge of modern societies “decided” to give up the right to have multiple wives, they clearly didn’t give up their interest in having sex with multiple women. The sex lives of leaders like Mao Zedong, Jack Kennedy, and Newt Gingrich, show that while these men may have imposed monogamy on other men (under Mao, infidelity was a punishable crime, and Gingrich vociferously attacked Clinton’s sexual infidelity), they haven’t been all that interested in following these rules themselves. It sounds like a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung once wrote to Sigmund Freud that “The prerequisite for a good marriage, it seems to me, is the license to be unfaithful.”
As it was throughout history, the rule of monogamy was for the common man in society, not the leaders, who still got the privilege of having mistresses, with tacit social approval. Interestingly, this arrangement has even benefited the men in power, who are now no longer obligated to marry and support these other women, in order to pursue sexual variety. Nowadays, as I describe in The Myth of Sex Addiction, many of these men simply claim to be sex addicts and retreat into pseudo-treatment. Their mistresses are then merely the by-products of an uncontrollable illness, rather than people for whom these men are responsible.
Through a (probably unconscious) social process, modern Western societies have gravitated towards emphasis and requirement of monogamous marriages, because it smoothes out some significant social problems. By preventing powerful men from having multiple wives, and allowing all men a democratic chance to get married, men spend more time worrying about looking like good potential mates, and have less time and energy to break the rules and get in trouble. Modern society’s moral emphasis upon monogamy is based upon historical, pragmatic evidence of the social benefit of requiring monogamy for (most) men.
Photo — derekGavey/Flickr
About David J. Ley
For most women throughout history, it’s made a lot more sense to be the 5th wife of a powerful man rather than the sole wife of a poor man. Men who resent monogamy should consider that…
Practicing monogamy is a little like practicing Catholicism – you can keep being a monogamist in between bouts on non-monogamy. As the tech nerds like to say: it’s a feature, not a bug.
“…..because it smoothes out some significant social problems. By preventing powerful men from having multiple wives, and allowing all men a democratic chance to get married,”
Legally and procedurally, powerful men are forbidden from having multiple wives. However, they cannot be stopped from having multiple women. In reality, it is these very same men that so many women find uber attractive. Many women simply throw themselves at such men readily willing to become a member of his informal harem.
While I can see the overall social benefits of monogamy, the reality is the same as if polygyny were legal. The end result today, even under monogamy, is still the same: nearly 40% of men “go hungry.”
It is estimated that some 30% of adult men (hetero) are involuntarily celibate. Another nasty reality is that some 20%-25% of all children are born in a marriage where the husband is not the biological father.
So, what have we achieved, if anything?
Do you have any links to support these stats?
This is from one of the earlier studies from early 2000.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_38/ai_79439406/
Go to http://www.mayclinic.com or http://www.webmd.com for more “estimates” of today.
Data on “duped” Dads.
http://divorcemagazine.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/34/
My grandfather had “other wives” outside of the official marriage to my grandmother (they lived in Asia)….My grandmother passed away from cervical cancer (which may have been due to HPV infection, an STD presumably from grandpa’s outside activities)….I never knew her, but I heard she was always very angry and bitter about his “other wives”….
Eh…
Bidness as usual. The question is, can John Q public handle the truth?
I doubt it.
So it goes…
The Wet One
And does John Q Public have to handle the truth?
Nope.
People will just carry on as usual and hypocrisy will rule the day as usual.
It’s a great thing isn’t it?
I am glad you are exploring non-monogamy without immediately condemning it, but regret that you fall under the same cultural presumptions that so many do – assuming that men being more sexually explorative than woman. As a female who has been in non-monogamous situations, I think you are missing a huge and important part of the complexity of human sexuality by focusing on polygyny and male ‘promiscuity’ and assuming woman are not pulled in similar ways. The fact that you have little evidence for polyandry is hardly reason enough to omit woman from the non-monogamy equation. You have to consider the effect of the Neolithic Revolution’s impact and control over woman’s bodies, for one thing. That most of human history was prior to the Neolithic Revolution (and is still largely a mystery given that we have only archaeological sites and primate comparisons to go on) suggests how very little we know yet about human’s sexuality from an evolutionary point of view. In addition, marriage is only one milieu in which people have sex. What about people – male and female, married or not – who have had multiple sexual relationships. Surely women have been doing this as long as men, especially in those cultural situations when they did not risk their lives for doing so. I’d like my full sexual complexity acknowledged rather than the overwhelming tendency to assume that as a woman I am less interested in sex, or sex with multiple partners. A good place to start questioning these presumptions is to read Sex at DawnThe Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.
For most of human history, until fairly recently, people have lived in relatively small, isolated communities.
Try to imagine what life would be like in such a community where every (adult) individual could regard every other (adult) individual as a potential sex partner. Think there would be much cooperation?
“a community where every (adult) individual could regard every other (adult) individual as a potential sex partner”
I think there would be much cooperation in beds.
The problem would not much be about sex (who slept with whom), it would be about children and property.
I think there would be a lot of sexual competition, and that some people in the community would end up frustrated and consequently less cooperative. There is always competition and frustration, but I think monogamous marriage is intended to minimize them. You obviously have a much sunnier view of human nature than I.
Actually there are societies like that. I recently read a book about the Piraha tribe of Brazil (they have become famous in the last few years for their extremely unusual language) and the author (who lived with the Piraha for 20 years or something) mentions that one reason the people in Piraha communities get along so well with each other is that every adult Piraha has probably had sex with nearly every other adult in the tribe. They do pair up to have children but the pairings are flexible and changing. Their society appears to be stable and cooperative.
Thanks for your comments. I’m not ignoring or dismissing female sexuality. In fact, please check out my first book, Insatiable Wives, Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them, which explores in detail the history and current practice of permissive female infidelity. It is in fact the very first book to ever do so. This article is truly not focused on sexual desires, but on society’s response to them, and the devil’s bargain made to seemingly restrict nonmonogamous sexual desires, in exchange for social benefit.
If you wrote a book called The Myth of Sexual Addiction you’re sadly deluded. It’s quite real. Most level one sexual addicts don’t bother with multiple partners. They do porn, now much more ubiquitous over the internet. The production of dopamine and other reinforceming hormones during the chronic masturbation that accompanies this is plenty addictive. As far as the article above goes, I’m sympathetic to your argument, and see the sense in it. In response to the poster above, I think Sex at Dawn is not necessarily a good argument for current polyamory. Even in poly arrangements, most sexuality is one on one. SAD says that a woman’s cries during sex and her multiorgasmic capacity are signals for other men to join in. This may have been true in ancient times, and I disagree with Helen Fisher, whom they also critique, that monogamy was an early adaptation. We may have changed culturally and physically, however. I think that these characteristics of women now reinforce languid sex with one male (usually.) Many men rise to the occasion, if you’ll pardon the expression.
Thanks – but, mere belief in sex addiction does not equate to evidence for its existence. And, there is little to no real evidence that what is described as sex addiction, or porn addiction, is something unique and separate from many other problems – in other words, these behaviors are often the symptoms of other real issues. And, while plenty of folks throw around the idea that dopamine is addictive, dopamine is a neurochemical involved in a huge number of human activities and behaviors. During sex, even masturbation, it is working the way it is supposed to. The current moral panic over porn addiction is no different than historical fears that vibrators were addictive for women, replacing their husband’s penises. Playboy was banned from 7-11 under the argument that porn was addictive – the idea that porn is addictive is mere smokescreen for people with a moral agenda. But, I invite you to read Myth – if, after reading it, you still feel that sex and porn addiction represents a legitimate, supported concept, I’d be surprised.
David, I am sympathetic to the idea that there is a moral panic around porn. I believe that there’s a place for erotica, and have used it, even though most of the women I’ve been with have not been interested. I have worked with people I’m pretty certain had an addictive relationship with porn, however. Twleve or sixteen hour masturbation sessions, just skirting an orgasm, for example. And many more than just one man has told me this. Hank
Actually, no, porn addiction is not a myth. There have been fully vetted studies on this and the info has been available through TED as well as the native site of the project http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/.
The tremendous upswing in ED is directly tied to porn use. The reason they couldn’t do a full study on this until recently is because they didn’t have a control group of men who stopped using porn. There is plenty of data available on the subject now.
“Regardless, monogamy works, or at least the idea of monogamous marriage works.” My experience is that this translates as; the woman is monogamous & the man tries to be discreet with his affairs. Men do not generally tolerate their wife having other sexual partners, while women are more interested in trying to “save” the relationship, and therefore hope it’s an isolated incident. I suspect that in the future, there will be fewer marriages, and more living together, as women accept that marriage limits their options but not the options of their spouse, and move up the earning ladder (need less financial support).
Who are all these men cheating with if not a very similar percentage of married women? Women are not inherently less likely to cheat…..just less likely to self report in the various studies that get bandied about.
Or is that huge a percentage of the population of married men on the Gay down low? Don’t give me it’s only with single women ….. many married women cheat with single guys too. Women are not “better” about these things…..just a bit more subtle……and less likely to self report …..along with the larger social stigma for a man to admit his wife cheated….especially if they have children…..it raises questions.
@misty christy: “Men do not generally tolerate their wife having other sexual partners”
Neither women do (maybe they did, decades ago).
This double-standard attitude is true for BOTH genders: we’d like to have our (sexual) freedom, but we’re pissed off when our partner does the same.
Don’t expect logical behaviour from human beings.
“I suspect that in the future, there will be fewer marriages, and more living together, as women accept that marriage limits their options but not the options of their spouse, and move up the earning ladder (need less financial support).”
Yes, I think you are correct. This man believes this is a good thing for both sexes.
Parts of Canada have legalized polygamy, just as they have legalized same sex marriag – and it hasn’t falled into the sea. Poly is not a choice any more than homosexuality is a choice. However, it is a choice that is legally denied.
It’s even a crime to call someone your spouse, even if you’re not legally married. It is beyond comprehension, and remarkably bigoted to make an adult man or woman’s choice to have mulitple spouses a crime. It’s based on prejudice and ignorance.
The thing that has always amazed me is that people find a woman in a relationship with two or more men totally bizarre. Yet, how can workaholic men have a stable relationship. You might call it the Paint Your Wagon marriage. I would see it as two workaholic men a woman and a poet! Hey she deserves some romanance!
The other problem that I see with the one man one woman arguement is that no one is arguing that it is a clear violation separation of Church and State because it is forcing one religious sects ideal of marriage on society. I’m a Unitarian Universalist and I go to a Welcoming Church where relationships is not an issue. To me One Man One Woman is not just stupid its against my RELIGION!
Even the most strident atheists and anti-religionists (which also oppose your church) oppose marital freedom. Even most of the SSM advocates hypocritically oppose freedom to marry, insisting only on their definition of marriage. Their opposition is gender-blind.
I think a polygamous could work if both men and women have multiple spouses. If you end up with a polygamous society, with men having multiple wives but to the other way around, I think eventually the average man will suffer as there will be a deficit of available women.
Polygamy has existed for thousands of years, with just men having the opportunity – with no resultant societal breakdown as s result of a shortage of women. If women had the opportunity, that would only help.
Furthermore, there are fewer available men since they are murder victims 4-5x more often, are suicide victims 3-4cmore often, are incarcerated many times more often, and die several years younger, including in their teens and twenties. As a result, there are more unmarried women than men who would like to be married, but can’t find a partner.
@Sarah. That is already de facto the case! Look at the high involuntarily celibate rate for adult men.
What we have is a system where a few men have a disproportionate number of women. Either the 10%-20% of uber attractive men with multiple women or well to do men with mistresses and girlfriends….A lot of women desire the same men. So, these select and lucky guys are sexing multiple women. The women know it. Apparently, they are quite OK with it until they want a committed relationship….
JMO.
@Terence Manuel: “A lot of women desire the same men”
A lot of men desire the same women as well: the gorgeous, model-like, young and utterly attractive.
Never ever think that a gender is better than the other: you would only delude yourself. 8)
As a matter of fact, everybody would like the get “the best one”; it’s istinctive and evolutionary.
Then, most (reasonable) people “settle for” for somebody else, and they learn to appreciate their lot (I hope).
Do you think women never “settle for”?
@Valter…
You missed my point completely. Women have greater and easier access to sex than men. Would you not agree?
Most women view only a FEW men as attractive and likable. They are far more discriminating Valter. We have to look at whom women elect to sleep with as oppose to marry. Women will have sex with men whom they have no interest in dating. When it comes to committed relationships, women tend to chase after the ultra attractive and likable men. Men do not do this Valter. We do not throw ourselves or chase after such similar women with zeal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nedda-alammar/dating-humor_b_1587402.html
The above example is typical. Her gut told her he was a nightmare. Yet, she pursued him anyway.
Just read and listen to women on how much they complain about the men they meet with online dating. Why so much complaining? These women have totally unrealistic expectations. What they really desire is Mr. Ultra Attractive and Likable Man.
There is a blog, unfortunately I will not name the woman, where the woman met a man who she found attractive and likable. She developed a “connection.” She started having sex with him. He dropped her like a hot potato. Stood her up and would not call her back.
The other men she met were found handsome and nice. But there was no “connection.” They were tossed.
I found it quite ironic that the very guy whom she found ultra attractive is the one who dumped her. But, honestly it is not ironic. These men have multiple women. My point is women all too often go for men who are like this. They already have someone.
No, women do not “settle” Valter. Recently, CNBC did an episode about online dating. During the show, a professional matchmaker was interview to talk about online dating. Her perspective was, “If a potential mate has 85% of what you are seeking, in my world that is a great match.” I happen to agree with the matchmaker. This is considered “settling” by most women today.
JMO.
Terence, it seems to me you have a skewed approach. Prejudices and such.
Kind of overestimating women (and subtly despising them), and “men have it worse”.
Funny thing is, many radical feminists would say exactly the same in reverse. 8)
So, where does lie the truth?
I think the truth usually lies in the middle. And men and women, albeit somehow different, have both pros and cons. They have similar issues, and – on average – there’s no “better” or “luckier” gender.
As a matter of fact, both genders complain, because both suffer and life sucks for both.
I will try to answer to you, but I’m afraid you will just stick to your prejudices, and notice just the facts that reinforce them (and of course that’s just MHO).
@TM: “Women have greater and easier access to sex than men. Would you not agree? ”
On average, yes.
OTOH, they have not easy access to the sex THEY want; i.e. quality sex with emotional connection and at least some intimacy.
What they have easy access to, is mostly the “Wham! Bam! Thank you ma’am” kind… not what they’re looking for, mostly.
@TM: “Most women view only a FEW men as attractive and likable”
The same goes for men. In a room with twenty women, men tend to focus on the 2-3 most beautiful ones. At first, at least.
@TM: “When it comes to committed relationships, women tend to chase after the ultra attractive and likable men”
Not true.
When women want to commit, they tend to choose:
A) Good providers, and/or
B) Reliable and willing men
OTOH, it’s when they just want a good shag, they go towards the “studs”.
@TM: “Men do not do this Valter”
Yes they do. Ever saw a man going after the most beautiful girl, the model?
Especially when young, most do that; and they tend to reject the unattractive, just like young girls do.
@TM: “Just read and listen to women on how much they complain about the men they meet with online dating”
And yet, men dating online tend to choose much younger women, avoiding women the same age. Thus, again, discriminating older and less attractive women.
I could go on, but it seems to me you just want to reinforce you own beliefs. And complain. 8)
As I said here many times, we’re all in this together (men and women), and playing the “WE have it worse!” card is not helping anyone.
Here is what I find troubling about this article: everything in it is presumptive of male privilege, as though women are things to which males deserve access. Perhaps the starting off of one paragraph is telling, i.e., “the history of man”.
Sex isn’t a right. We live in a world where males are encouraged to see their “man-ness” in terms of whether or not they have sex, or own property, or get promotions/recognitions/awards. These things are ludicrous, and yet we still insist on being defined by them. And while we could engage in lengthy discussions on their folly we are ignoring the very real problems and dangers that this attitude causes women.
The overall privilege in this piece is, frankly, appalling. Even the term “monogamy” is a word of privilege, as though a male is entitled to own a vagina, but where is the dissection of this concept? And the false equivalencies drawn around female promiscuity, as though women should be assuming the unhealthy behaviors of modern males, conflates the problem. This is forcing the discussion and adjacent arguments to remain in the patriarchal frame.
If we want a liberated society, we have to end all notions of male ownership of sex and sexuality. We as a species have to stop defining it in terms of erections. Until we can learn to do this, these endless conversations about “polygamy vs. monogamy” will continue with no good result, perpetuating harm to women who are vulnerable to penis-centric culture, rape apologetics, porn and prostitution apologetics, all of which enable far darker and more heinous cultures through the erosion of our attitudes toward them.
You’ve absolutely hit the nail on the head Chris. A couple of other commenters have posted nearly the same thing, but this is the most eloquent and comprehensive version.
“The overall privilege in this piece is, frankly, appalling. Even the term “monogamy” is a word of privilege, as though a male is entitled to own a vagina, but where is the dissection of this concept? And the false equivalencies drawn around female promiscuity, as though women should be assuming the unhealthy behaviors of modern males, conflates the problem. This is forcing the discussion and adjacent arguments to remain in the patriarchal frame.”
This sort of nuttiness is why I consider myself post-feminist. I’m with Freud. It’s love and work, baby.
Interesting explanation on monogamy’s practical side and benefits.
Enjoyable read.
I like monogamy for one reason. Being in a relationship with one woman is already a backbreaking pain. Having to have a relationship with two would be tantamount to losing both legs.
Polyamory is the thing for me.
Always sleeping with different women and never settling or marrying.
@ChrisC: So “promotions/recognitions/awards” are male-only desires that do not interest women? If that is what women’s rights activists are saying these days, it’s no wonder that the struggle for economic equality has stalled. Honestly, most women I know are outraged (quite reasonably) that they make on average $0.70 to the men’s dollar, but could care less about how many people someone else wants to shack up with. Unfortunately, most conversations with self-described ‘feminists’ degenerate into hand-wringing over the sexual activities of consenting adults. Women face oppression and institutionalized violence in many countries (much of it in societies that suppress pornography and punish promiscuity to protect women from men’s sexuality), and the economic barriers women still face in our society are very real. Despite the real disadvantages women face every day, feminism has been hijacked by middle-class women who are seemingly only concerned with bringing back Victorian morality. Just as polite society was dedicated to stamping out unnatural practices like masturbation, homosexuality, and female enjoyment of sex (a.k.a. ‘promiscuity’) to protect the gentle-women your brand of feminism purports to save by crusading against pornography — and now, apparently crusading against recognition of career success/talent to protect women from the world. I don’t understand how anyone could seriously claim any of this puritanism is helping women achieve freedom or equality.
I could point out that women enjoy casual sex, pornography, and — when not conditioned to hide it — display as wide a range of sexual desires as men. I could point out that much of the concern over ‘rape culture’ seems to lead to re-adopting the idea that seduction and rape are equivalent, which denies women the right and ability to make sexual decisions (and mistakes) for themselves. Instead, they are to be good girls and allow you to police their desires for their own good. (The arguments against pornography and prostitution also hinge on a similar disavowal of woman’s right to her own body and sexuality.) I suppose you and Dworkin were somehow given the final say on what they really should want, regardless of their own needs. Unfortunately, your brand of feminism is really only concerned with your own hangups and preferences. The distaste certain middle-class women feel toward sex is now a more important cause amongst ‘feminists’ than equality (economic, sexual, or any other type of decision-making). By taking the position that ‘female promiscuity’ (by which I guess you mean unladylike behavior) is dangerous, you are sacrificing women’s right to choose their own sexual behavior on the altar of your own prudishness. Luckily, most people, of all genders, realize that sex is not some horribly corrosive invention of men. Most civilized people realize that both men and women have the right to act out their desires with other consenting adults. Middle-class pseudo-feminists, and Santorum (as well as other religious fundamentalists) are the only people who still believe that what other people do in their bedrooms (or movie studios) should be policed. By taking this stance, you make it clear that you care more about imposing your opinions on others than equality. Rather then fighting for equal rights you waste your time trying to create a world where you will not be offended, and your personal taste trumps freedom for anyone — of any gender.