The State We're In, 11 February 2012. How a Palestinian Romeo crept through illegal tunnels to be with his Juliet in Gaza. Why an American sociologist thinks that monogamy virtually guarantees cheating. What happened when a woman in Toronto answered an ad for female escorts. And how a man annoyed a woman so much on a flight... she married him. Comment on the show.
Podcast feed
iTunes 
Like us on Facebook 
Follow us on Twitter 
Add us on Google+ 
Taher Moslimany and Rita Isaac are both Palestinian, and madly in love.
But he lives in Israel and she lives in Gaza.
They’ve seen each other only once in their whole relationship - and that’s when Taher crawled through illegal tunnels leading into Gaza to attend their wedding.
Here’s the song Taher wooed Rita with.
It's based on a famous Palestinian poem by Mahmoud Darwish, entitled 'Rita and the Rifle'.
Finding that special someone is supposed to answer all our needs, including the sexual.
But that’s simply untrue according to American sociologist Eric Anderson.
In his recently published book, The Monogamy Gap, he concludes that monogamy is profoundly unsatisfying, and virtually guarantees that cheating will occur.
His provocative findings are bound to generate heated debate.
Working girl - listen in new player
Out-of-work actor Glenda May Richards in Toronto, Canada was tempted by a magazine ad offering work for female escorts.
So she applied. She "auditioned" - and even passed.
She tells host Jonathan Groubert why she has no regrets about the experience, and what she learned about herself in the process.
Is this seat taken? - listen in new player
Tucker was unshaven, hung-over and talked non-stop.
He kept talking for nearly 3 hours. And then she finally started responding.
They’ve been happily married for six years now.
Email this Radio Show
Printer-friendly version
I download your podcast each week but don't always have time to listen to it during the semester, so (needing a break from studies) I finally spent a day catching up with your (and Earth Beat and TTBOOK) shows and listened to the Valentine special. I loved all the stories! And while I agree with Dr. Anderson's conclusions about healthy people, relationships and sex, I don't agree with his solution that we need to change our view of marriage. Marriage, in itself, is fine - great the way it is. A committed, monogamous, and loving relationship between two people is what defines marriage. *What does need to change*, however, is the societal norms that people *ought* to get married. Why people are pushed and shoved into feeling that they have to "live the American Dream", with the house in the 'burbs, two (or more) children, a dog, cat and membership to the local country club is ridiculous (note, I'm not criticizing them if they truly want those things, only that society force people into thinking that they do).
My husband and I have been happily childless for fifteen years, and look forward to a future without them. We're constantly getting bombarded with "when are you gonna have a baby" or "I can't believe you guys don't have kids! You seem so happy!" or "How can you not like kids? I'd die without mine!". I have a crude answer for all of them, but I give them each a more polite one. Seriously, who are they to tell me what I should or should not do with my life? Answer: Sheep that have been brainwashed into thinking that following societal norms are the only way to live. I'm very happy for people who are happy with their children, as long as they love them, there's no reason for me to criticize or berate them. It's just a choice I don't want for myself.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if a person knows they will not be happy in a monogamous relationship, we need to allow them to live a lifestyle that conducive to their desire - the bachelor life. Instead of making people feel bad for not achieving a goal that just isn't practical for them, which is what so much of the media does; let people explore the alternative. So yes, I think our view of marriage should change, but not in the way Dr. Anderson has in mind.
Oh, and forgot to add that I have not read his book, I am only responding to what he said in his interview.
-Thanks,
Samantha C.
I am certain I will be one of thousands of people responding to the professor’s discussion about monogamy on your show about Valentine’s Day. He has data suggesting a high level of sexual infidelity in couples and draws the conclusion, based on what is apparently much more limited data on happiness in swinging vs non-swinging couples, that conventional monogamous marriage leads to stress and unhappiness, which can be decreased by a structure of marriage involving non-monogamous relationships.
This draws a scientifically suspect conclusion from the data (assuming that the data is 100% accurate). A cause and effect association of greater happiness with the sexual structure of the marital relationship can’t be concluded by the finding of greater happiness in one group. There are likely numerous other differences between the groups, any of which, or the combination of all of which, are equally likely to explain the difference in happiness between groups. There are innumerable examples of researchers drawing what are found to be spurious cause and effect conclusions because of associations such as this.
This approach, and all approaches studying “happiness” differences between two groups, often draw very suspect conclusions for another important reason. The very definition of “happiness” is unclear in many of these studies. Often it is self defined by the group being studied. At first glance this would seem to be a strange statement. Shouldn’t “happiness” be defined by the person or group being studied? Of course it should. The problem is that most realistic concepts of human happiness suggest that it is multi-dimensional with many levels and can involve different time frames. What makes us happy for 5 minutes may not make us happy for 1 year and may cause us unhappiness over a long time frame. Happiness has both concrete and existential/spiritual aspects. In asking people their degree of “happiness”, it is rarely clear what aspect of happiness is being inquired about and what aspect is being considered in the answer.
Research suggests strongly that sexual satisfaction is enhanced by having multiple partners. This has been shown by much research beyond what was reported during the interview. What role this plays in the larger context of the many aspects of human happiness is not at all clear from the research and suggestions discussed in the interview. Also, the conclusion that non-monogamous marriage would lead to greater stability of marriage does not follow from this research. Many listeners, like the interviewer, will have a gut reaction that the professor’s arguments are suspect. He needs to be challenged with the above questions/criticisms of his conclusions.
Dr. Blume has constructed a straw man argument against my book. My book is not about happiness, the word doesn't even appear in the index. My book is about why men cheat; the social construction of monogamy as an ideal; the biological drives that put men at odds with that construction; and the devastating chasm that lies between them.
I think he would be well advised to read the book, first.
Hi Dr. Anderson. I apologize that you thought these comments were an argument against your book. They are not. You are correct, I have not read the book, and don't know all the nuances of your arguments, and the strength of your data. However, you made certain strong assertions on the radio which are disonant with conventional wisdom in our culture. I admire that very much. It is the nature of good scholarship and honest intentions to question such conventional wisdom. It is also important that such questions to conventional wisdom themselves be thoughtfully examined. My understanding of your statements in that public forum lead me to the conclusion that you believe strongly, based in part on your research, that a monogamous structure of relationships leads to a higher rate of discord, dysfunction, and dissolution compared with a non-monogamous structure. I assume that this is what you are refering to in your reply as the "devastating chasm" between the social construction of monogamy and the biological drives that put men at odds with that construction. I would again assert that this gap is well established by much research, but the question is how a monogamous vs non-monogamous structure of relationships affects the overall long term function or dysfunction of these relationships. I also understood that you believe strongly that non-monogamous relationships have better long term functioning, at least in part because of the problems of having to hide infedility in monogamous relationships, given the high levels of infidelity that you and others have observed. To the best of my knowledge, this is an unproven theory. The correctness of this theory is in no way proven by the gap between the social construction of monogamy and the biological drives that put men at odds with that construction. There are obviously many, many other factors beyond this gap that play an important role in both the short and long term outcome of relationships, and the effects of a non-monogamous structure to relationships is likely to extend far beyond its effect on this gap. I understood that you were at least suggesting that there was data that non-monogamous relationships have less discord, less dysfunction, and less long term dissolution compared with monogamous relationships, and I was making the point that such associations do not prove cause and effect because there are likely to be many other important differences between these two groups, any of which could explain this difference, and that any difference in functioning or outcomes, if it exists, may just as likely be from these differences, not monogamy vs non-monogamy.
I personally applaud that you do not make claims about happiness, as in my experience of looking at social science research, this complex idea/concept is generally simplified to the point of making any data about "happiness" virtually useless to draw any meaningful conclusions or even suggestions. However, it is not a straw man argument to question the basic claim that non-monogamous relationships have better short and long term functioning, because the existence of the above mentioned gap does not prove this, and simple comparisons bewteen monogamous and non-monogamous groups also in no way proves this.
Thanks, Gary. We'll post Professor Anderson's response once he's had a chance to get back to us.
Love the story of Tucker and Nadia.
Thanks Yu and Scott!
Engaged on Valentine's Day
Great story on Taher & Rita, TSWI!
And best wishes, Taher & Rita. I hope the Israeli authorities notice your story and allow Rita to move to Israeli.
I'm writing to commend you on the brilliant job you do bringing all those real human stories from across the globe to us every Saturday. I always look forward to your show, which begins immediately after I leave my Saturday class for a long drive home. I'm going to get every person I know to listen to your show. Thank you so much for the wonderful job you do.
Your biggest fan,
Patricia
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.