Posted on 05/27/2015 2:18:45 PM PDT by drewh
Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey’s beat is the Internet. But her big piece on the front page of Wednesday’s Style section is about something broader: “Forsaking monogamy: The evolution of relationships has made affairs less clandestine and less combustive. And of course there are Web sites to help match tryst-seekers.”
This being the Post, there is no space for critics of the "evolution" of online adultery Web sites or their users. Dewey promoted the “non-monogamous dating site Open Minded,” where her married female subject, Jessie, advertised, “I’m into building deep and loving relationships that add to the joy and aliveness of being human.” She talked her husband into “ethical non-monogamy.”
The Post also used the term “monogamish,” the cutesy term of radical gay sex columnist Dan Savage to describe the married-but-cheating lifestyle.
The online headline was “Are new dating apps killing monogamy? Or has it always been dead?” Dewey pushed (B). Or monogamy is an old “agricultural” tradition that’s fading away in the modern age. Adultery is the new mainstream, according to Open Minded founder Brandon Wade:
Open Minded is a new kind of dating site for a newly mainstream lifestyle: one in which couples form very real attachments, just not exclusively with each other. He expects swingers, polysexuals and experimental 20-somethings to use his site. But he guesses that most of his 70,000 users are people like Jessie: Those in committed, conventional relationships, who realize that, statistically speaking, few modern couples stay with a single person their whole lives.
“If you look at marriage, it developed as a survival strategy and a means of raising kids,” Wade said. “But relationships are no longer a necessary component of life. People have careers and other interests — they can survive without them.”
That’s not wrong, says Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and one of the world’s leading relationship researchers. In the caveman days, humans teamed up in non-exclusive pairs to protect their children. Later, as people learned to plant crops and settle in one place, marriage became a way for men to guarantee kids, and for women — who couldn’t push heavy plows or carry loads of crops to market — to eat and keep a roof over their heads....
In fact, given the history and prevalence of non-monogamous relationships throughout cultures, it’s not scientifically correct to say the human species mates or pairs for life. Dogs mate for life. Beavers mate for life. Humans have one-night stands, paramours and a 50 percent divorce rate.
Fisher dubs it a “dual reproductive strategy”: We’re biologically programmed to form pair-bonds, yes, but some people — many people — are also programmed to seek out variety.
So, if you stay true to your spouse, you’re more like a dog or a beaver than a human. To the Post, this is about empowering the ladies, not the men:
More and more women will make this choice or consider it, Fisher expects; it’s in keeping with decades of widespread social change and women’s empowerment. Just 30 years ago, when Jessie was in her 20s, the average woman married at 23 and had her first child within the year. Her mother’s generation didn’t even leave the home. The majority simply raised kids, preached chastity and finger-waved their hair.
“That’s all sliding away from us,” Fisher said. “We’re shedding all these agricultural traditions.... [and] returning to the way we were millions of years ago.”
The Post story doesn’t quite explain that the Open Minded site is selling threesomes and other polyamorous hookups from its home page. Wade tells the Web surfer on the home page he’s created “a safe and stigma-free environment that brings the ease and flexibility of online dating to the currently underserved world of open relationships.”
Dewey ends with a little slam on that ancient Christianity thing, and how millennials have no use for it: “Thus far, most of its self-declared ‘monogamish’ users are under 33. In other words, they’re women (and men) who paid off their own student loans, fooled around on Tinder — and grew up with a notion of personal independence much different from the one taught in the 1st century A.D.”
I’m amazed I am not driving past pillars of salt every day.
This line of “evolution” away from a time-honored definition of matrimony has been followed before. Somehow, it always presaged the collapse of a civilization and the demise of a once-powerful nation.
There might not be a road back for generations, but the error of the current “evolution” will be recorded once again, and the old ways shall revert.
They can if they choose to. That's what makes humans different.
Thank God my parents were not “scientifically correct”.
Whatever the rest of the world does, I have zero interest in a married man. I don’t care how attractive or rich or funny or whatever else. If he cheats on his wife he would cheat on me. Besides, I don’t like the idea of being one of a harem. No thanks. I don’t get people who do, though I have known a few. In the cases I’ve seen it has had to do with loneliness. I’ll never be that lonely. I don’t want to be that sort of person. I don’t want to hurt another person in that way. I don’t want to be associated with a cheat. Neither do I want it for my own future when he would tire of me.
Monogamy or nothing. Faithfulness is a required character quality.
How very “Brave New World”
Monogamy is frowned upon.
Mother and Father are obscenities.
This is just the homosexual deathstyle being promoted to normal people.
Then again it was an alien wizard that made tiger woods cheat...
Sounds like LCBTQ agenda is in there.
hence the dramatic rise in STD and AIDS as one of the benefits ...
Hillary would agree, monogamy is so 20th century. Bill was just ahead of his time.
gotta love how LIBTARDS refer to “studies” and “trends” and other braod brush made up “facts” to back their positions and opinions but seldom any FACTS...
is it possible her one study was HERSELF... I THNK SO...
I suppose science without morality would leave people to think rape and murder were natural to humans. In a way they are. But they are not moral and understanding that is what separates us from mere animals — or it used to.
I don’t know who “Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and one of the world’s leading relationship researchers” studied under but she doesn’t seem to understand that monogamy was an essential evolutionary adaptation needed to fulfill the needs of large brained but slow developing offspring. Since the child was born with a brain that was still developing over a multi year period, a stable family unit was essential. Of course the logical gender adaptations are simply unacceptable and thus wrong to the feminists who are rearranging family structure out of existence.
Biology vs. ideology.
And children don’t need a mother and father.
Let’s see, between this and Rush’s example today of the article telling us how much more “tolerant” we are today of immoral behavior, this has been a really depressing day.
First, dogs do not mate for life. They mate all their lives, true, but anyone who has been around free ranging dogs knows very well that they most certainly do not mate for life.
Monogamy leads to intact families
Which leads to success in life
Which leads to independence
Which leads to fewer people in the underclass, dependent on liberals
Which leads to less power, money, and sex for liberals.
We cannot allow that.
And these are the people calling Christianity extreme!
Interesting this fornication advocacy is happening at the same time as gay marriage. Perhaps these hedonists know gays aren’t faithful to one person and are trying to change marriage to accomadate that.
She’s just trying to get readers. I looked at her FB page and she and I assume her boyfriend look pretty cozy. Be ashamed if he cheated on her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.