In some recent fiction I posed the question, “Did [so-and-so] really have only two choices: Traditional marriage or shallow promiscuity?” Part of the idea of the story is that there are multiple choices; just because someone doesn’t live in a traditional marriage or relationship doesn’t mean that they are living a “shallow promiscuous” lifestyle.
At the same time, I’ve been exchanging opinions about the Congressman Weiner “affair” (<heh?>) and realizing what a knack Americans have of considering anything other than monogamy “shallow” and “sleazy.” And how so much of our phraseology reduces everything other than monogamy to cheapness.
Then again—I’m also reading Sex At Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethrá. This book from 2010 suggests that humans are naturally, happily “promiscuous”—by which the authors mean “having a number of ongoing sexual relationships at the same time.” (I immediately disagreed with this definition). They also discuss cultures in which people simply have sex with a lot of people (whether in any kind of relationship or not).
Myself, at age 60, almost feel comfortable with sexual encounters outside of an ongoing relationship. Almost. Because I prefer sex within a relationship. “Promiscuous?”
