Amber Rhea gets the hat tip for this article in New York Magazine: The Affairs of Men: The trouble with sex and marriage. That’s the title in the magazine, anyway, but when you click on the link, the title that comes up is What Makes Married Men Want to Have Affairs?, which is a very different sort of question. Asking why men want what they want is never, ever, the same question as why men do what they do.
The author, Phillip Weiss, gets us off to a depressing start:
When the Eliot Spitzer scandal broke in March, I had only sympathy for him: another middle-aged married guy tormented by his sexual needs. I’m 52 and have always struggled with the desire for sexual variety. Everyone gets an issue, and that’s mine; it’s given me pleasure and pain, and jolted my marriage. I’d only talked about my issue with any honesty over the years with about six or seven people, and when you leave out my wife and a therapist, they are all men.
So the conversation had a conspiratorial male character. When people at dinner parties cried out, “What was Spitzer thinking?” I whispered to a friend that I knew damn well what he was thinking: He wanted some “strange,” to quote the old Kris Kristofferson line. Or we passed around JPEGS of Spitzer’s date, Ashley Dupre, and commented on her luscious body. The governor’s plight had the effect of outing me. When I told one married friend about my torment, he cut me off. “Everyone in our situation has had one or two episodes. Straying, wandering eye, a blowup. If you have a pulse.”
What situation is that, I wonder? The situation of the middle-aged married male, caught between his promises and his urges? Apparently. Here’s Weiss’ stunner:
An article of faith among the men with whom I discussed these issues (and an idea ignored, if not contested, by most of the women I know) was that the hunger for sexual variety was a basic and natural and more or less irresistible impulse. “I haven’t ever seen anyone who doesn’t deliver on every single demand their sexuality makes on them. We make the mistake of thinking some people have a stronger will, they don’t,” says a forward-thinking friend. “There is no more unnatural principle of social organization than sexual exclusivity.” But like other of my male sources, he didn’t want me to use his name. “Don’t get me divorced!” was the refrain. All of these guys nursed a fantasy, as quaintly surreal as an old tinted postcard, of a perfectible world in which we might have sex outside our primary relationships and say that it doesn’t mean anything.
Yikes. Let’s just say, the piece goes down hill from there. The bold emphasis above is mine; it illustrates the classic fallacy of what I call the “myth of male weakness”. Here’s how the fallacy works:
1. Men naturally desire sexual variety.
2. That desire for sexual variety is very strong.
3. That desire is, in fact, so strong that it can never be resisted, and in the end, will always trump the will. It’s only a matter of time.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but just for the sake of argument, I’ll happily concede that monogamy is not a “natural” state for either men or women. Then again, neither is using the toilet rather than peeing down our legs; from about age three on, each of us has been trained to master (most of us with constant success) what is a frequent, imperious urge. Saying that something is “natural” is only a compliment when it refers to organic food — it tells us nothing about the capacity for human beings to exercise control over their behavior. #1 and #2 may, for the sake of discussion, be true — but it’s absurd to conclude that #3 “naturally” follows.
Weiss’ friend makes an extraordinary claim, one he seems to back: I haven’t ever seen anyone who doesn’t deliver on every single demand their sexuality makes on them. We make the mistake of thinking some people have a stronger will, they don’t. That’s a succinct argument that what I’m calling the “myth of male weakness” is in fact reality. And what’s so infuriating about it is that it’s nearly impossible to disprove, particularly in light of revelation after revelation about the falls from grace of which Eliot Spitzer’s is only the most recent and most spectacular.
I can’t prove I’m faithful to my wife. I can’t prove that there isn’t a whopping disconnect between what I write on this blog, what I tell my spouse and my students, and how I behave when no one is watching. One of the reasons why so many men do cheat, I think, is because they live in a culture that expects them to be unfaithful. They might conclude: why be accused of something you didn’t do, when you might as well be accused of something you did? That way, at least, you had some transitory pleasure before the condemnation that seemed inevitable anyway. Trying to prove a negative, that one hasn’t been unfaithful, is more or less impossible. That’s a difficult reality for many folks to face.
So you’ll have to take my word for it when I say that I’m faithful to my wife, that I don’t use porn, that all of my sexual and romantic energy flows towards one person. Let me say also that I know what it is to be unfaithful; I cheated on my first two wives. (In my first marriage, I was serially unfaithful, beginning days after returning from the honeymoon). I remember the sense of shame I felt the first few times I cheated, and I remember that the cheating got progressively easier with repetition. The second betrayal is, usually, ten times easier.
When I was cheating (and these affairs ranged from the purely sexual to the intensely emotional), I always described myself as being in the grip of a compulsion I couldn’t control. I wasn’t consciously lying; I genuinely believed that in the face of my desire for what my father called “everlasting novelty”, I was helpless. A budding feminist, I never claimed that the inability to be faithful was uniquely male — rather, I tended to say (to my closest confidants, anyway) that none of us, men or women alike, had sufficient will to resist the sudden, brutally strong demands of eros. It was a neat trick; like most philanderers, I convinced myself that I was a victim rather than a volunteer.
The sense of being “weak” was fairly accurate. The will, after all, is a muscle: it can be built and strengthened, or it can atrophy. People aren’t born with strong or weak wills any more than a body builder is born with bulging biceps. Like a rock-hard physique, the will is strengthened through repetition and discipline. When someone who has never lifted weights walks into a gym, looks at a pair of 30-pound dumb bells, and says “I can’t do curls with those”, that person isn’t lying! Because he hasn’t yet built the muscle, it’s true that he isn’t yet strong enough. But if that same fellow walks in and says “No one can do curls with 30-pound weights, and I am sure I never could”, then he’s buying into a myth about weakness. The problem with the Weiss article is exactly that: it confuses what men don’t believe they can do with what they haven’t yet been adequately trained to do.
I learned, over time, what it took to be faithful. The answer is not “meeting the right person”; no relationship alone is enough to guarantee fidelity. Infidelity is always about the person who chooses to cheat, and rarely about the person being cheated upon. My wife is beautiful, strong, and I love her with all my heart. Her looks and my devotion to her are not the foundation upon which my commitment to monogamy is built. I don’t cheat on my wife because of a commitment I’ve made to myself. In the end, if I’m unfaithful to my spouse, she might not find out. But I will know that I am a cheater; I will have betrayed not only my wife, my family, and the community that trusts me but also the man I have worked so hard to become. Polonius is a fool, but his most famous line, “to thine own self be true” resonates for me here, even if I quote it out of the original context. Love alone is not reason enough to be faithful. Fear of being discovered isn’t sufficient either. In the end, the strongest and best reinforcement for the will is the profound desire I have — that I think everyone has, deep inside — to be a person of radical integrity. In a strange way, it’s radically selfish. (It’s also, I think, consistent with Aristotle, but that’s for the philosophers to deal with.)
Of course, I don’t just want to have integrity in order to flatter my narcissistic self-concept. While sexual fidelity alone is not the foundation of all other virtues (I’d rather have the philandering Clinton as my president than the apparently monogamous current occupant of the Oval Office), our suspicion that men are incapable of fidelity is at the root of our profound cultural mistrust of all things male. The men’s rights advocates are right: we live in a society that places little faith in men. The MRAs fail to see, however, that men have gleefully, willfully, often pathetically and repeatedly done all they can collectively to destroy that faith. We are the architects of our own adversity, and the chief way in which we perpetuate the problem is by convincing ourselves that we are, in the end, helpless victims of testosterone or eros or what Coetzee calls the “rights of desire.”
Whether marriage has any meaning in the modern world is not the subject of this post. Whether monogamy is the ideal state, or whether we’d all be happier in polyamorous communities is not something I feel like writing about today. But what I do believe is this: monogamy can be one particularly satisfying and challenging vehicle for personal and collective growth. I also believe, as the Greeks did, that dishonesty and betrayal are guarantors of future unhappiness. Exercising the will, building the will, using the will, is often hard work. But the great reward is to be able to say to oneself, at the end of the day, “I have been today who I longed to be”. And no “new skin” or “strange” can compete with that.
UPDATE: Let me be clear that this is one of those areas where private moral satisfaction and communal good are coherent with each other. I realize that the last couple of paragraphs here seem to imply that the only reason to be faithful is to continue to hold oneself in high esteem. That’s not a bad thing, mind you, but it’s an incomplete reason. Our families and our culture at large also desperately needs men and women whom they can trust and upon whom they can rely. Marriage may not be, as the conservatives allege, the bedrock of society. But infidelity and deceit do do real damage to hearts and hopes. And while our greatest loyalty may be to a God, and then to ourselves, we also obviously have a responsibility to others. Men can be who we need them, wish them, long for them to be.
When men go around admitting these things (the men in the article, not you, Hugo), what incentive is there to dating them? I’d rather be alone than with someone who refuses to be faithful. It certainly paints a depressing outlook.
When someone like Phillip Weiss says the things he said in that article, what I really don’t get is why he’s in a monogamous relationship. I mean, he seems to be very clearly saying that he is polyamorous - so then, if you still want a primary female partner, find one that’s also polyamorous and move on. What are you doing in a monogamous relationship where you have to hurt your spouse to express your true nature? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m a monogamous person, and it serves us monogamists if polyamorists were honest with themselves and others.
The “women naturally want to trap men into unhappy marriages” tone of these sorts of articles seems pretty disingenuous to me. It’s not like life outside of marriage means you’re going to go out and sleep with someone new every night. For whom is being single the best way to get laid? I found it very easy to not sleep with people when I was single, to my consternation.
Ah, the male victim talk! That argument is as old as the claim that women are naturally “hysterical” because they have a uterus. I like best your analogy between controlling one’s sexual urges and learning to use a toilet. It really isn’t that hard, once one has mastered the art of peeing in a culturally appropriate place. At the same time, potty training doesn’t happen by itself, as many moms and dads will confirm, but it takes a culture of accountability in order to make it happen. That’s one step I would add to your argument–namely that the “male conspiratorial” vibe of such articles might do well to be replaced with a vibe of mutual accountability.
And once again, though late in the article, we get the old double standard. Weiss himself said…”no thanks.” So like lizriz, I don’t get the man at all. Irresistable urges vs “no thanks” if the proposition goes both ways.
Last time I checked, which was admittedly awhile ago, men were far less tolerant of female infidelity than the reverse, though this appears to be changing somewhat, in that women are less inclined to just suck it up, and more women appear to be stepping out these days.
Excepting the “no thanks,” notably absent from the discussion was any examination of hubster’s attitudes about the wife indulging in her own “irresistable urges.” Why is that…do you think?
As Ahunt pointed out, nope, he’s not. Because when his wife responded to his whining with “if you get to, so do I”, then all of a sudden all the angsty comraderie vanishes. And, curiously, he never follows up on what this might mean. Too painful, I guess, to consider that part of his lackluster sex life might be that his wife is as bored and as interested in straying as he is.
And, curiously, he never follows up on what this might mean.
Being sexist here…but it is as if the collective man brain short circuits and burns out at any consideration or suggestion of their own role in a diminished sex life with a spouse.
Having worked through this issue on a couple of occasions in thirty years of wedlock, I do believe, from experience, that there is the old boogeyman, masculine entitlement, at work here. How else can one explain the sheer obliviousness of the article?
One way to explain this line of idiocy is the normal tendency of people to project there selves onto others. this is especially useful when you know you are doing something wrong. presto the wrong action an individual takes is biological or everybody does it. projection and rationalization make a powerful tool to support stupidity. this article is a few thousand words of two basic pysch defense mechanisms.
I have to agree with you on your concept about the ‘myth of male weakness’ in the sense that men are in control even when aroused and that failing to maintain that control should not be linked to the strength a man has over his sex drive. But, I think that categorizing an unfaithful married man as someone who couldn’t be anything other than a man weakened by their own sexual perversion or fantasy isn’t the only explanation for an unfaithful man (or woman). When I was in college, I had an affair with a man who was married and much of it I look back on and regret, but at the time, the man I was involved with, though married, wasn’t and didn’t claim to fall victim to some sort of weakness. He was consciously aware of the decisions being made based upon an attraction that we had at the time. I am not saying that makes it okay to have torrid affairs or to cheat on your spouse… I am simply saying that affairs can be linked to something other than a weakened state of mind based on ones sex drive male or female. I have been happily married now for 7 years and I am bound in what I believe to be a monogamist marriage. But if I were to find out my husband had cheated on me I would hope that he would have a reason other than his ‘male weakness’.
The main thing that struck me about the article was the shock of airing his discontent with his marriage so openly, given that he has a functioning partnership (on at least some level) with his wife. The point seems to be to stew in the frustration and discontent–this story had all the makings of a wonderful polyamorous “coming out” tale, and from a serious, well-respected journalist, as well. I am all the more puzzled since Weiss is one of the major players in Israel/Palestine journalism on the web, and his main point on that topic is that sclerotic institutionalized responses to the conflict have deprived American Jews, Israeli Jews, Arab-Americans and Palestinian Christians and Muslims of the flexibility and generosity necessary to resolve the conflict. For someone so committed to thinking “outside the box” to commit to an institution that plainly does not serve him or his wife when a NEGOTIATED SOLUTION is at hand, when this inflexibility is what he complains about in the context of I/P, totally blows my mind.
He’s bragging–my horniness is so incredibly powerful I can’t help myself–and, as one commenter said, protecting himself by presuming or asserting that everybody does it.
Cheap, lame, and, worst of all, transparent.
Looking at the article …
But Buss says the difference between the genders in the desire for variety is not minor (as, say, the gender difference in height is, about 10 percent on average); it is staggering, “like the difference between how far the average man and woman can throw a rock.”
You know, that may not be the best example. The difference in height is pretty much pure biology, while the difference between how far the average man and woman can throw a rock probably has some biological component, sure, but is surely influenced by the fact that men have spent years being encouraged to spend lots of time improving their skill at throwing things, while the average woman has spent much less time practicing throwing.
And the height thing is going away now too. It’s really hard to tell what’s society and what’s genetic.
There’s another issue, too. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the evo psych expert he consults, Buss, is largely right:
So, say the desire of the average man for variety is greater by just as “staggering” an amount as Buss says it is. And let’s say, further, that these sexual differences in what people want are more hardwired than cultural. This doesn’t follow:
Because, suppose the average husband does want to cheat on his wife with, say, a dozen different women at a time, while the average wife only lusts after one or two men, other than her husband, at a time? Why would that mean that the husband’s desire for a large variety is more irresistable than the wife’s desire for “a man or two in reserve”?
I think that there’s a very complex relationship betwen the myth of male sexual weakness and religion. (I’m a medieval historian and currently interested in clerical celibacy). One of the basic principles of Protestantism, for example, was that married clergy were necessary because normal men could not be celibate, and I wonder if some of that is still feeding into current ideas. (It’s also worth pointing out that to ancient and medieval thought it was largely women who were naturally more lustful).
But I’m interested in why the US, which has a strong Pelagian streak in its Christianity and an optimistic culture generally (we can become perfect by our own efforts, we can improve ourselves) has this very helpless view on male sexual control? And do American men express this same view about other bodily appetites: that they can’t help over-eating, drinking too much etc?
It must be a slow news day, or they are trying to boost readership. I suspect maybe it’s both when they run articles of this nature as sex always sells. The theme is recurring and the content like a broken record. I get tired of the same old stuff regurgitated like it’s a new revelation. YAWN. If you look at something 6 months ago, and maybe not even that long, I’m certain we’d find very similar articles, different author, etc., but essentially the same. It’s like the e-mail joke list with the same stuff which despite getting larger, comes from a few different sources, but contains the same thing. People must be very bored, or unhappy or both. And unhappy, dissatisfied people like company and seek someone to blame for their poor choices, or find reasons for excuses. The biggest issue I see is his dissatisfaction with himself.
Magistra.
Latin countries have a worse view of male sexuality and its control. The institution of DUENNA means that the happy (or frustrated) couple are never left alone because that would mean IT happened. No argument. Or would happen, sure as the stars shine.
I have a friend who works for a multinational corp, HQ in the US. They are having a bit of luck trying to train Mexicans in not harassing the female help. South of Mexico, they don’t even bother. It’s like the entire idea came from Mars.
Hugo,
I so appreciate your honesty. You speak with authority, because you are willing to share your own experiences and the mistakes that you have made along the way that have lead to the commitments you make today. Thank you for your courage and candidness. I admire your integrity.
Ah, the classic monogamist argument: “…this is one of those areas where private moral satisfaction and communal good are coherent with each other.” As if the ONLY correct path is monogamy. But if we’re really honest here, what we’re trying to do is justify an existing moral code.
Am I saying that moral code is inherently wrong? No, of course not. I am saying that this moral code is not inherently RIGHT, either. What this piece is effectively doing is trying to reinforce the notion that monogamy is the ONLY acceptable practice, and that we just have to train ourselves into it.
But, given our national AND global propensity for cheating, it would seem that we’re not very good at this training. Yes, we have some faithful few like our author who have learned to achieve this divine state after a few failed marriages, but by and large as a species we’re pretty bad at it. So why not consider alternatives for those who don’t have the willpower to go to the gym three times a week and sweat at the barbells?
Our patrilineal mindset automatically assumes that I’m just trying to justify womanizing. Most people don’t believe me when I promote women’s sexual rights as well as men’s. But that’s really what it’s about. Relationships aren’t about POSSESSING people. Commitments do not confer a deed of ownership (unless you’re into that sort of thing). A lasting, loving commitment can be made that does not include sexual or emotional fidelity. People do not have to be indoctrinated to believe that having more than one friend or lover automatically cheapens their relationship. I think you’ll find that to be a product of socialization rather than biology.
We want what we want. This is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. But we’re inclined to pursue what we want regardless of the cost, and that’s where problems enter. An alternative solution is to accept that we’re not wired the way we’ve been taught to expect and to be open and honest about our desires. If we can actually talk to our partners about what excites us, what we desire and what we want to pursue without our partners automatically assuming that it’s an affront to them, we might find a peace never dreamed by our Puritan-minded ancestors.
In purely anecdotal evidence, as offered by the author, the solution I’ve outlined above has been working for me. I know it won’t work for the author, just as the author’s solution hasn’t worked for me. There is no single solution that works for everyone. Only solutions that work.
SpaceGhoti
I don’t think that monogomy is about possession, nor do I believe that commitment implies a deed of ownership. If you do not desire monogomy or commitment, and have no interest in it, then be honest with your prosepctive sex partners and say so, prior to pursuing someone/anyone. And don’t try to persuade someone to your point of view, because you are horney or they don’t think or believe as you do. I met a lot of men, who basically talked as you do. Basically, they just wanted sex and were trying to convince me to have sex. They didn’t care one iota about my feelings or beliefs. They made the same comments and said the same things and suggested that they were promoting my sexual rights, etc. They just wanted to have sex with me–all the other stuff was BS and I didn’t buy into it. If you’re one of those people who like to argue sexual diversity and biology, then there are studies on jealousy, exclusivity and pair-bonding as well. Jealosy is a normal reaction to perceived threats to pair-bonding, etc., and pair bonding is a natural desire. People are far more than just biology.
I’ve never met anyone who has maintained a “lasting, loving commitment,” without “sexual or emotional fidelity,” unless you are talking about family or parents. Those people who are indoctrinated into communes and polygamous beliefs, generally are stifled into obeying oppressive doctrines. Some people who escape such restrictive situations don’t speak highly of their involvement, but talk about the destructive impact to their lives.
People are more than their biology.
That’s why I talk about being open and honest. It’s not a guarantee of success; I was open and honest with my ex-wife before we ever talked about dating, let alone marriage. It turned out she wasn’t honest about her intentions, which is why we ended up not lasting.
Polyamory is not for everyone. Not everyone can handle the thought of their lover seeing someone else, even if they expect the same privilege for themselves. Some people ARE just out for as much sex as they can find. But mature, responsible adults can and have handled it in loving, lasting relationships as my lady and I are proving.
The point is that monogamy is not the default, and shouldn’t be hailed as such. People should be given the information to make informed choices. Some people can’t handle monogamy. Some people can’t handle polyamory. It’s no use condemning folk for having a preference one way or another, so long as everyone is honest about it.
SpaceGhoti,
If you’re upfront and honest about your intentions then someone can make an informed decision. No one likes being lied too. No one likes deception or manipulation. If I met men who said right in the beginning, I’m attracted to you physically and want sex and I’m not monogamous, then one could say, no, I’m not interested or whatever. That isn’t how most people operate. They lie, deceive and manipulate (and engage in excuse making for their destructive behaviors) to get what they want. Most are not upfront, but try to romance and seduce to get you to like them before they sprng their beliefs on you…and then they try to persuade you to their way of thinking. If that trick doesn’t work, then they insult and label to bully you and resort to infantile tantrums and cynicism. Most men who claimed polyamory did so after the fact…They were neither open or honest. And most tried to persue a 13 year-old-girl with their “open” sexuality. If they had been honest about their intentions to begin with, then I would have told them to take a hike and that I wasn’t interested. Instead they then attempted to persuade me to their thinking and lecture me while at the same time labeling me with critical, judgmental terms–which I see as bullying. I condemn people who lie and deceive others, about their sexuality and other behaviors, and especially more so for males who bother under-age teenage girls.
I don’t think the blog was suggesting that monogamy is default. I’ve never really cared much about other people’s sex lives. Some people are really into statistics about other people’s sexuality, maybe they indentify with them or it helps them to feel normal. I don’t know. I’ve never been a voyeur or keeping up with the Jones’s about anything. I don’t care to be exposed to their issues.
Hugo:
Everything you wrote here resonated with me profoundly: the essentially selfish reasons for monogamy, the debunking of Weiss’s naturalistic fallacy, the frustration with the ways male privilege leads men to become people who cannot be trusted or relied upon.
One other important point about the article:
I haven’t ever seen anyone who doesn’t deliver on every single demand their sexuality makes on them.
Even if this were true one some level (which I don’t actually believe, at least not in any strong form): people are usually capable of arranging the structure of their lives to avoid bad outcomes, even if their will at the crucial moment isn’t up to the task of resisting temptation. Women are expected to do this all the time with regard to sexual risks like rape; if men’s libidos are truly as out of control as the speaker claims, then surely men should be obliged to be careful about what sorts of situations they put themselves in.
But of course, they aren’t; the onus is always on women to prevent illicit sex.
Karen,
That may not be how most people operate with you. But there are whole communities of people out there who live by the code of living openly and honestly, particularly when it comes to sexuality and their partners. We have a friend who has stated her interest in joining our partnership, but is refraining because she already has too many commitments. All of us are fine with that, because sex isn’t a DEMAND for us. We’re none of us slaves to our desires, and none of us are putting our friendships at risk over it.
Yes, there are people who abuse the trust they gain with others. There are people who abuse the power they have with firearms or positions of authority or simply the right to drive. There are bad people in the world, and good ones too. If you expect to be burned, you’re likely to make it come true. I know too many sad people who live in that cycle and can’t seem to break themselves out of it. I can’t fix it for them, I can only offer my sympathy and an example of what could be.
SpaceGhoti
“That may not be how most people operate with you.”
First, not just with me.
“But there are whole communities of people out there who live by the code of living openly and honestly, particularly when it comes to sexuality and their partners.”
So, I’ve heard, from people (males) who tried to recruit and convince me, but who were duplicitious in their actions. Talk is cheap, actions demonstrate character. I value trusting, committed relationships and yes, monogomy with (a man) who values the same. And I don’t view it as ownership or possessiveness. To be frank, those were just the type of labels people used to try to manipulate me to their desires and what they wanted. It had nothing to do with me and was all about them.
“Yes, there are people who abuse the trust they gain with others. There are people who abuse the power they have with firearms or positions of authority or simply the right to drive. There are bad people in the world, and good ones too.”
I was specifically speaking about sexuality, not firearms, etc., why leap to that. Sexuality is very personal and it’s a core issue, one which I respect. The people I’ve met who espouse your beliefs about sexuality are the very people who abused trust and power. Yes, some people are willing to experiment, but they change and when they do, they are critical of group dynamics which they feel betrayed them.
“If you expect to be burned, you’re likely to make it come true. I know too many sad people who live in that cycle and can’t seem to break themselves out of it.” “I can’t fix it for them, I can only offer my sympathy and an example of what could be.”
Making sweeping generalizations doesn’t help your argument and is not convincing. Is your position so weak that you would have to resort to cliches? What exactly or who are you trying to fix? If they are not interested in your lifestyle, respect that. I’m certain they’ll find good compatible people who value and share the same beliefs, instead of trying to change or recruit them. Everything you say here is dejavu and sounds very similar to members of cults who are actively recruiting members. I think it wise to learn how to respect other people’s values and choices when they are different from your own, and not try to recruit them with sympathy and cliches. Respect and value their choices and move on. No need to sell them or try to lecture them unless your aim is to win converts and to feel superior.
If two polyamorous people want to be together, that is totally fine with me, as long as they are giving full disclosure to potential other partners and being safe about sex. I won’t make an argument either way about peoples’ “natural inclinations,” either.
I will, however, say that I think that if so many men were truly polyamorous, they wouldn’t have these jealousy issues about their partner “getting theirs, too.” That’s just about wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, from where I stand.