Watch the video of him saying this here --> http://bigthink.com/ideas/24738

Quote :

Question: Does society need to rethink its view on love and monogamy?

Dan Savage: Yeah, absolutely we need to rethink love and commitment. You know 60 years ago was when we decided that men had to be monogamous too. Men were not monogamous. For all of recorded human history men had concubines and whores, and 60 years ago straight relationships began to become more egalitarian and it was less of a property transaction—a marriage had been a property transaction for most of recorded human history—and it became a union of two equals. And at that moment instead of deciding to allow women to have the same sort of freedom and leeway that men did we decided to let men have the same limitations, impose the same limitations what women had and we put monogamous sexual commitment at the heart of all relationships, all long-term commitments, all marriages and we have watched.

We should now be able to recognize the consequences of that, which are a lot of short-term relationships, a lot of divorce. Because monogamy is ridiculous and people aren’t any good at it. We’re not wired for it. We didn’t evolve to be. It’s unnatural and it places a tremendous strain on our marriages and our long-term commitments to expect them to be effortlessly monogamous. Because what we said is "If you’re in love you shouldn’t... you won’t want to have sex with anybody else and what we need to tell people is that if you’re in love you can make a monogamous commitment and you will refrain from having sex with other people, but you will still desperately want to fuck the shit out of other people." But people understand love means I don’t want to fuck other people because of these misconceptions pumped into people’s heads about romance, love and what it means. And so they meet somebody else that they’re attracted to and they’re attracted to this other person. They go "Well, I must not be in love with my partner anymore otherwise I wouldn’t be attracted to this person." Or they feel threatened when their partners are attracted to other people because it makes them feel insecure and we just need to get passed that and we talk about monogamy the way we talk about virginity, that you’re monogamous until you fuck somebody else and they’re you’re not. You’ve ruined it. You popped your monogamy hymen and destroyed your monogamous relationship.

We need to talk about monogamy the way we talk about sobriety, which you can be monogamous and fall off the wagon and then sober back up. You can monogamous back up and get back on the wagon. And the truth of the matter is that if you’re with somebody for 40, 50 years and they only cheated on you a few times they were good at being monogamous, not bad at being monogamous. They were good at it. So I do think there needs to be some leeway. And a lot of really good loving relationships are destroyed because somebody wants a little variety or isn’t getting a need met and feels they have to step out and it explodes the relationship. I'm conservative. I think that we should do what we can to preserve marriages and long-term relationships, and one way to do that is to encourage people to have more realistic attitudes about sexual exclusivity.

Recorded on October 18, 2010
Interviewed by Max Miller

This guy sounds like he's trying to justify adultery and promiscuity and throwing whatever he can against the wall until it sticks. Lame.

I'll never get why people are so darn set to vilify monogamy. Nobody's forcing them to practice it. Who are they really trying to convince?

And yet there are other breeds of animals that manage to stay with only one partner for their whole lives. So if it's good enough for the animals, why is it impossible for the 'advanced, progressed, evolved' humans?

To an extent, he's right. Monogamy isn't natural, but it's necessary. Playing around with others while you're in a committed relationship to one person creates havoc and is asking for trouble. This is why you don't "settle down" until you're ready, and you don't get married when you're a 20 year old virgin. Monogamy takes maturity and enough life experience to know you're sure it's what you wanna do and you're confident that you can handle it.

Shale wrote:

Because we're not related to the other breeds of animals and because we are advanced, progressed, and evolved.

I thought we were ALL related! xD

Sorry people, the guy is full of it. Monogamy is plenty natural. It's sleeping around that causes the problems. The guy's just sex hungry for multiple partners and he wants to make himself feel better about it.

You have a point, FM, we didn't get tens or hundreds of millions of peopled infected with STDs from everybody being monogamous.

If some people CAN stay with one partner and feel satisfied, that's not supposed to mean that biologically there's something wrong with them.

I'm all for monogamy and all that puritanical shit....but he has a point about if a couple has been together for decades, then their relationship is a success....even if one (or both of them) strayed a few times. Not to dismiss cheating, but if you removed that single incident(s) from the equation....if your relationship has been otherwise strong, then you may wanna think twice about throwing it away because of a sporadic indiscretion.

I took it to mean that the "traditional" view of monogamy is ridiculous. That you will miraculously desire monogamy because of your relationship and never want anyone else again. I did like his view that monogamy should be looked at like sobriety and not like virginity (he used that analogy in another video). In everything I've seen him in, he's always made the point that you do what works for you and the hell with everyone else who wants an opinion on your relationship.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Sorry people, the guy is full of it. Monogamy is plenty natural. It's sleeping around that causes the problems.

And what problems might that be? If you are talking disease, that problem can be prevented thru safer sex practices.

If you are talking about "infidelity, adultery, sin" and all those other religiously constructed problems, it would not apply to ppl who are in agreement about the difference between having a relationship and having a fling.

My wife and I had an understanding that we were in a relationship. If I got enamored of another woman she was only concerned about how that would affect our relationship, not the fact that I might shoot off in another person. (the rule she gave me: Don't bring anything home - no children, no diseases.) I never actually connected with another woman during our two decades together (did it with a couple of guys tho).

The only "problem" arises when you are fanatical in your belief that one stray away from the artificial construct and into your natural urges will be an end all to the relationship.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

The guy's just sex hungry for multiple partners and he wants to make himself feel better about it.

Actually, he is in a stable relationship with his partner Terry (married in Vancouver) and they are raising an adopted child. IDK about his personal out of wedlock proclivities (nor do you, I suppose).

Shale wrote:

[color=blue]And what problems might that be? If you are talking disease, that problem can be prevented thru safer sex practices.



[size=18]Actually, he is in a stable relationship with his partner Terry (married in Vancouver) and they are raising an adopted child. IDK about his personal out of wedlock proclivities (nor do you, I suppose).

Can be prevented, maybe. But no prevention is fullproof, and you wouldn't have to prevent anything if it was natural. The science just isn't there for monogamy not being natural. People are just hungry for sex and wanna feel good about giving into it.

Yet he wants to be able to sleep with whoever he wants regardless of relationship stability. Sorry, color me not impressed. If you can't be monogamous, have the guts to admit it instead of hiding behind imaginary benefits for promiscuity.

Shale wrote:

U R Correct! Sex is Good!

You got a problem with that?

Not at all. Let's just be honest about it instead of hiding from it like this guy did.

I appreciate that long-term, committed, non-monogamous relationships are possible and that they exist, but I wonder how many people are able to compartmentalize sex and keep it separate from its various attachments.

I consider my monogamous relationship healthy enough to survive non-monogamy, so that isn't a problem. But I can't imagine having satisfying sex without some measure of passion, something that resembles "love." I could do that a lot when I was much younger, but as you age such pursuits seem barely differentiated from masturbation, something to satisfy a biological nagging.

The threat non-monogamy presents to committed relationships can be an issue of trust, as in the case of "infidelity," or stepping outside an agreement without prior permission, or it can be an issue of divided loyalties if seeking sex outside the primary relationship requires a measure of love (or maybe even just passion?) for other partners.

Just do what you want.

I mean... goddamn.

You can have the best of both worlds, though. Humans naturally longterm pair bond, but sexual exclusivity hasn't been historically part of that bargain and it doesn't have to be part of it now. You don't have to decide between exclusive relationship/marriage or a wild, swinging poly tribe or perpetual singledom. You CAN have a committed relationship that admits some outside contact. It's possible, I know because I've experienced both sides. There can be just as much BS associated with monogamy. Like jealousy, petty insecurity, paranoia and a sense of "ownership" of the other partner that all winds up combusting.

If someone can be involved with an alcoholic, rageoholic, smoker or loud snorer and stay the course, then there's no reason why the occasional outside liaison should be have to be a deal breaker.

I'd point out that non-monogamous couples are not necessarily honest with each other either. It's still possible to cheat, by breaking whatever rules you've laid out for your relationship. The poly relationships I've been witness to (quite a few, including several of my own when I was in my late teens and early twenties) haven't been any more honest than the non-poly ones, on balance.

I think monogamy at times ***can*** be ridiculous, I really do. But being non-monogamous doesn't solve that many problems, and for every problem that it solves, it creates a new one. Just sayin'.

I wouldn't call monogamy "ridiculous" at all. If there are two people who truly are in love, it's not difficult to stay true. I think in a relationship it's only natural to have urges and fantasies of other people - I think that's natural, but once you give into that and make it a reality you've most likely damaged and/or severed your relationship, and you have only yourself to thank for the destruction.

Monogamy is not hard and people who think it is "ridiculous" sound pretty ridiculous themselves - it sounds like they're trying to justify their own cheating and/or promiscuity.

One cannot force anyone to stay true to anything.....You must trust that the person you love will do what you deem to be the right thing.....That in it's self sounds CRAZY

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

This guy sounds like he's trying to justify adultery and promiscuity and throwing whatever he can against the wall until it sticks. Lame.

I'll never get why people are so darn set to vilify monogamy. Nobody's forcing them to practice it. Who are they really trying to convince?

Agreed. His whole argument sounds like rationalizing to me. Monogamy is important, as there can only be two people in a relationship. You start letting others in, and the chances things becoming tainted by outside grime are good.

My guess is that Dan Savage isn't monogamous himself. IMO a relationship isn't completely genuine if both partners aren't willing to shut everyone else out of their personal zone.