How stringent is the definition of monogamy?

I went with my wife, Karen, to see Ted and Melanie at Theatre 99 for Piccolo Fringe on Friday night.  Noticing a number of women alone or in pairs carrying six packs of beer or bottles of wine, I posted to Facebook:

@ Piccolo Fringe. Numerous attractive young women carrying copious amounts of alcohol. I feel like a lion in a field of wounded antelope. Sitting next to my wife. Soooo conflicted.

This prompted a number of comments.  All of the comments from my female “Facebook friends,” including the one from my wife, expressed anger or disappointment.  Which makes me ponder the contemporary wife’s definition of monogamy.

The reason I posted that facebook comment in the first place, and the inspiration for this blog, was my prototypically male reaction to seeing a number of young, attractive women deliberately lowering their inhibitions.  What I found interesting/odd is how highly attuned my senses were to the number of attractive women who were clearly drinking sufficiently to not have their usual inhibitions/defenses [no need to point out the irony of posting this blog the day after posting a blog about giving my 18 year old daughter a hip flask]. Even though I have been out of the dating market for 22 years and have a middle-aged man’s libido, evidently the instinct to find the attractive woman with lowered inhibitions still kicks in, much like a lion is going to have a fascination with a wounded antelope no matter how much that lion has had to eat.

From an evolutionary biologists perspective, I’m supposed to react to such“opportunities” to mate with fertile women (youth and beauty are signals of female fertility) at minimal costs (alcohol lowers inhibitions, reducing the amount of wooing a male needs to undertake for such mating opportunities and it’s obviously easier to mate with a woman who is alone or with female friends than one who is with a boyfriend or family).  What I found interesting was how much more riveted my attention was because of the combination of youth/beauty and alcohol and no boyfriends-in-tow.  My attention wouldn’t have been nearly as riveted if only one or even two of these conditions existed.

Is the female disapproval of my acknowledged interest a signal that men are not supposed to have this attraction or merely supposed to deny that they have this attraction?  My definition of monogamy is one in which I resist my natural urges, not one in which I deny or eliminate my natural urges. We now have a culture which tells wives that they should not only expect their husbands to be faithful sexually but that they also have every right to expect their husbands to find them-and-only-them to be attractive.  To be fair, we also tell husbands that they have every right to expect their wives to find them-and-only-them attractive.  I hoped marriage would keep my wife faithful; I did not expect it to render her blind.

How’s that working out?  Great if you like a system in which spouses have to deny obvious truths (other people are attractive/monogamy isn’t effortless) and experience disappointment when these lies aren’t perfectly upheld.  If marriage rendered all other people instantly unalluring, monogamy wouldn’t be any big accomplishment. Meanwhile, we give husbands no credit for fighting against millions of years of evolutionary development unless they also act as though no other woman piqued their interest.

However if we expect intimacy to be based on spouses being open and honest about their feelings, even uncomfortable emotions, this expectation is counterproductive.   What we have now is a culture that “values” the intimacy of emotionally honest relationships while telling spouses to denying their feelings.  Again, how’s that working out?


8 Responses to “How stringent is the definition of monogamy?”


Archives by Date

Archives by Category

Multiple Category Search

Search Type