Register Now!
LOG IN  |  SIGN UP
20

 Savage Love on hooksexup.com

My husband of eight years confessed to wanting to watch me with another man. I asked if he meant it. He said yes. I asked if he wanted me to set it up. He said yes. I found a guy, and he agreed to a full STD screening — at my husband's suggestion and our expense — so that we wouldn't have to use condoms.

I was worried about how my husband would feel. But he loved every minute of it — he loved it a little too much.

My husband had sex with me after our "guest" left. I still had our guest's semen inside me. Is my husband gay? Is that what cuckolding is all about? He didn't touch the other guy, but what the fuck? — Spouse Expressing Concern Over Newly Disclosed Sexuality

SAVAGE LOVE"Far from being an indication of homosexuality, your husband's turn-on goes back to the roots of male heterosexual experience," says Christopher Ryan, coauthor of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. "Human beings evolved in very intimate groups where sex often involved multiple partners."

Before Ryan walks us through what's so straight about your husband dipping his dick in another man's spunk, SECONDS, let me get this off my chest: Sex at Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948. Want to understand why men married to supermodels cheat? Why so many marriages are sexless? Why paternity tests often reveal that the "father" isn't? Read Sex at Dawn.

Now back to Ryan:

"Think about it," says Ryan. "Why would women have evolved the capacity for slow-building multiple orgasms while males evolved the orgasmic response of minutemen accompanied by a sudden disappearance of all interest in sex?"

Because — as Ryan and his coauthor Cacilda Jethá lay out in Sex at Dawn — for countless generations, our male and female ancestors, like our closest primate relatives (fuck-mad bonobos), engaged in multipartner sex. Females mated with multiple males, while males — so easily stimulated visually to this day — watched and waited their turn.

"Almost all of us get off on watching other people having sex," says Ryan. "Even if our minds deny it, our bodies respond in many ways, ranging from increased genital blood flow (in both sexes) to stronger male ejaculations."

By inviting another male into your bedroom, SECONDS, your husband — consciously or subconsciously — is inducing what's known as "sperm competition." Watching you have sex with another male made him more excited to have sex with you, not with the other male, and treated him to a more intense orgasm in you, not in the other male.

"So your husband's experience was very heterosexual," says Ryan.

I'll go further: Your husband's experience was the original heterosexual experience.

I am a twenty-four-year-old female. I've been in a relationship with a man for six years, on and off. I love him and think I could spend my life with him. But I have a hard time being faithful. I have cheated on him with other men and with women. He and I are not together currently, but we maintain a long-distance sexual relationship. We say that we are going to be together someday, but he has no trust in me. I would love to be content, but I can't seem to go very long before I get distracted. Please give me some insight! Don't Wanna Be A Heartbreaker

SAVAGE LOVE"Toward the end of Sex at Dawn," says Ryan, "there's a brief section called 'Everybody Out of the Closet.' We argue that it's not just gay people who have to go through the sort of brutally honest self-exploration involved in coming out. We all need to go through this process — and the sooner the better."

And here's what you need to come out about, DWBAH: You're never going to be happy in a monogamous relationship.

"It's time to stop bullshitting yourself," says Ryan. "You're very young, so, with all due respect, a certain amount of bullshit is to be expected. But you sound ready to move beyond this. Before getting into any sort of committed relationship, you owe it to yourself and to the other person to be honest about who you are, and for now at least, you're clearly not sexually monogamous. The best way to not be a heartbreaker is to be honest about your own feelings.

"And if you'll pardon just a few words of old-guy wisdom while Dan shares his amazing platform," Ryan continues, "many people your age (including yours truly, way back when disco was king) misunderstand the odds of finding love in life. Few young people really appreciate that by being open about who you really are, you end up wasting much less time on relationships that are doomed from the start. In the long run, it's much more efficient to fess up about who you are and what you're really into from the get-go."

Who are you, DWBAH? You're a slut. (I mean that in the sex-positive sense! I'm a slut, too!) And what are you really into? Variety. And don't feel bad: You didn't fail monogamy, DWBAH, monogamy failed you — as it has failed so many others (Clinton, Edwards, Spitzer, Vitter, Ensign, et al.), and will continue to, because monogamy is unrealistic and — this is not a word I toss around lightly — unnatural.

"Maybe half of the people you're interested in will walk away when you fess up," says Ryan. "Let them walk! Those who don't walk away are a much better investment of your time and energy — both of which are more limited than you can possibly realize at age twenty-four."

I've been with my partner for ten years. I have lost all interest in sex, while my partner still has a healthy libido. We've agreed on a weekly "sex night." I dread it. We could call it quits, but we have a child and we love each other. I don't want to break up our family, so I put up with "sex night." It sounds depressing, I know, but the alternative seems worse.Wishes She Was Horny

SAVAGE LOVE"Here's a dirty little secret: Lots of wonderful marriages aren't particularly sexual or exclusive," says Ryan, hinting at another alternative. "In Sex at Dawn, we show that sexual novelty was an important part of our evolution as a species and why the appetite is still so strong in us today. But, as you and your partner demonstrate, we don't all respond the same way to the absence of novelty.

"You don't say if your loss of libido pertains only to sex with your partner or to anyone at all," Ryan continues, "but it's a good idea to eliminate possible medical and psychological causes before concluding that it's a purely sexual issue. Assuming it's just about libido, I'd encourage you to talk about all this openly and see if you can't find a middle ground that preserves your family and the love you share but incorporates a more comfortable sexual arrangement that doesn't leave your partner frustrated and you dreading 'sex night.'"

In other words, WSWH, give your partner permission to fuck around. Ask yourself what's more important: staying married or staying monogamous?

"If you can find a way to take the pressure off both of you, you might find a deeper intimacy with each other and a return of your libido," says Ryan.

I usually end the column with a plug for my podcast. Not this week: anyone who's ever struggled with monogamy — and any honest person who ever attempted it admits to struggling — needs to read Sex at Dawn. For more about the book, and how order it, go to www.sexatdawn.com.

Comments ( 20 )

Dan, I usually love your column, but this is really disappointing. Not only is evolutionary psychology reductive, it's spurious. It doesn't stand up to any evidentiary standards. And 'natural' is a value-judgement that has as little to do with 'nature' as SECONDS' husbands kinks. Surely, as a gay man, you should know that
AFS commented on Jul 07 10 at 8:41 am
What a crock of shit. If DMBAH really needs to go through "the sort of brutally honest self-exploration involved in coming out" then it is totally inappropriate for Ryan to prejudge the result of that introspection by going on to say "You're never going to be happy in a monogamous relationship.". Either the desire to be non-monogamous is something personal that must be discovered through some brutal honesty or it is the kind of thing that another person could diagnose through trite observation - but it can't be both. While we are at it, I am reminded of a fairly vivid criticism of the whole evolutionary psychology movement. "When sociobiologists start shitting in their backyards with dinner guests in the vicinity, maybe their arguments about innateness over culture will start seeming more persuasive." — Laura Kipnis
NN commented on Jul 07 10 at 8:46 am
What do you think?
auster4u commented on Jul 07 10 at 8:48 am
Re. the cuckolding situation: Scientists have theorized that the flared shape of the glans on the penis is there to scoop out the semen of the previous sex partner before you deposit your own.
Moops commented on Jul 07 10 at 9:18 am
Evolutionary Psychology does seem somewhat reductive. We don't continue to advocate hunting and gathering so I'm not quite sure that we can advocate the same sexual practices.
scram commented on Jul 07 10 at 9:53 am
This article flies in the face of much of what Dan Savage has written in the past. He's certainly never been a monogamy cheerleader, but he never went so far as to claim that monogamy goes against evolution and biology. That sounds like a defense a CPOS would use. "Sorry, honey, you can't argue with science." Whether or not to stay monogamous is a personal decision. I don't know how much our evolution and biology impact it, but I know that this article went too far into to the fatalistic, predeterministic aspects of evolution. The fact that millions of couples remain monogamous their whole lives disproves a lot of the article.
Me commented on Jul 07 10 at 9:55 am
Meh. Monogamy is over-rated. I think his point is not that monogamy works for no one, just not for everyone.
Jakes commented on Jul 07 10 at 10:05 am
Hunting and gathering: don't knock it 'til you try it.
Nonymous commented on Jul 07 10 at 10:11 am
It's not that monogamy is wrong, but that it is not the default, natural state; this is to counteract the idea people's desire to sleep with more than one person is somehow a pathology. We've seen it time and time again: when someone (usually a man) is caught cheating people say there is something wrong and broken about him.
Moops commented on Jul 07 10 at 10:40 am
This column definitely comes off as if to say that this fits for everyone. Just as there is a range of sexuality and male/female attraction in the population, so I think there is a range on the subject of monogamy. Furthermore, fantasizing and following through are not the same thing. I might fantasize sometimes but I really am not interested in carrying through. Clearly some people are, but I don't presume to know what anyone else feels or that they feel as I do. I do support the honesty rule though, that is sound advice. If you aren't interested in monogamy, find someone of like mind and don't string someone along by lying to them.
SC commented on Jul 07 10 at 10:44 am
ok, here's an additional wrinkle. let's say you do admit to a new partner that you do not want to be monogamous. does that then entitle the partner to query you on all aspects of your polygamy, specifically the use or non-use of condoms, birth control, etc. that's where i think more of the problems would come in. how much disclosure is enough?
mr. man commented on Jul 07 10 at 1:06 pm
My reply seems to have vanished into cyberspace. Oh well, try the short version: like birds, we are evolutionarily designed to both be monogamous and unfaithful. Nothing else in recorded history--real history, not "just-so" fables of the neolithic times--tells us different. Think of it as original sin in our DNA; pretending it' snot so doesn't change things. In the future--which is to say, for kids born today (really)--we'll live to be 100. We'll end up with some sort of serial monogamy with Thursdays off for bad behavior but with people still lusting after their non-spouses.. Just don't write nice stories about open group sex-positive lives; we aren't engineered for it. Too bad. But we ain't. And just to prove there is nothing new under the sun, here's an article I wrote 10 years ago that says the same thing. It's still up--nothing dies in cyberspace: https://www.suck.com/daily/2000/05/22/daily.html
AlanK commented on Jul 07 10 at 7:11 pm
I am pretty new to this site, but this is the first time I've noticed Savage's column being an infomercial. Is this normal? The real giveaway was the last question. There is NO possibility that a serious advice columnist thinks the best solution to a woman's loss of libido is for the husband to have affairs. If she's merely losing interest in her partner there are a billion ways to spice things up (roleplaying, etc etc). if she's really lost her libido, though, she needs to go see a therapist for her own sake as well as his and the kids'.
ac commented on Jul 07 10 at 7:42 pm
...or maybe you just should not look to Hooksexup for serious advice since they are busy trying to get facebooked and tweeted etc.
ac commented on Jul 07 10 at 7:44 pm
@Moops - I think people are broken or wrong when they lie about what they've done - that's the "caught" part. If they were open about what they were doing there would be nothing to "catch". An ex cheated on me once, and I was as hurt, if not more so, that he lied to me about it. If he had been up front with me, saying "look, I'm really attracted to this girl, I want to pursue her, what do you think?", true, I would have ended things with him. But things ended _anyway_. And he lost my respect.
AH commented on Jul 07 10 at 11:16 pm
If you want to read an even bigger load of hooey, click through the link. It makes the logic in the column seem positively rational.
turtle commented on Jul 08 10 at 4:25 am
A strict Darwinian would disagree with the "Sex at Dawn" hypothesis quoted by Savage: the name of the evolutionary game is to ensure as many of YOUR genes as possible reproduce, so it makes little evolutionary sense to share your genetic output with another male (in a Darwinian sense, the stupidest of all men are those who raise another man's child). There are some cooperative scenarios, where family groups work together to pass shared genetic material to the next generation, but the only way to really win the evolutionary game is to ensure that your OWN genes reproduce. Under this set of rules, it makes sense for a female to remain monagamous because that way shes gains the support of her partner, thereby increasing the chances that her genes will survive. Many primate groups (and other social mammals) have evolved social structures where multiple females consort with a single alpha male, with the superfluous males kicked out of the society. This way the alpha male maximises the probability that his genes will be passed on, as do the females (this social model is more or less followed by our closest primate "cousins", gorillas and chimpanzees). The excluded sub-alpha males can only reproduce by surreptitiously mating with females or by becoming alpha males themselves. I haven't read "Sex at Dawn", but it seems to me that the author needs to demonstrate that the social model followed by primitive humans was substantially different from that followed by advanced primates. Also, early historical texts, such as the Bible, demonstrate that the monogamy (or at least restricted partnerships) was the social norm. Granted these are "religious" documents and may be biased, but they surely represent some kind of social consensus at the time. Like some of the other respondents, I think the arguments put forward by "Sex at Dawn" are a bit self-serving (eg, "I like multiple sex partners and it helps to find a reason why this is the case"), but they don't stand up very well when examined in the light of other data.
starbo commented on Jul 08 10 at 3:07 pm
Mr. Man, that's a good question to ask. In my opinion, any sexual partners are entitled to know where you stand on safe-sex practices. It could impact their health and well-being: this is more important than your privacy.
Cam commented on Jul 08 10 at 4:58 pm
Ugh, Dan, really? I didn't think you would be gullible enough to be taken in by evolutionary psychology. I have a masters in physical anthropology, and trust me, evolutionary psychologists are a joke among social scientists. Time to rethink "sex at dawn." seriously. shit man.
LM commented on Jul 08 10 at 11:56 pm
ok cam, thanks for your take.
mr. man commented on Jul 09 10 at 2:06 pm

Leave a Comment