Register Now!
     REGULARS








    Bigicon




      Send to a Friend
      Printer Friendly Format
      Leave Feedback
      Read Feedback
      Hooksexup RSS

    Perhaps it's that I just moved to France, where adultery seems to be the national pastime, but the subject of infidelity has been on my mind lately. Here, people still wonder why Monica Lewinsky was a big deal — after all, the current president's wife, whom he met when he officiated at her first wedding, spent most of 2005 living in New York with her lover. Infidelity is a touchier subject in Anglophone culture, paradoxically both less publicly accepted and more subject to neurotic analysis. Ergo, where the French have the civilized cinq à sept, we have binge drinking and two varieties of football.

    Why the apparent difference between the two cultures? The facile answer is to resort to macho-Latin clichés, but it's not like infidelity isn't also prevalent in Anglo-American culture. Proponents of that branch of voodoo science known as "evolutionary psychology" will quote you articles on "sperm competition" and that surprising numbers of kids aren't related to their supposed fathers. This isn't really the place to go into the game-theory explanations of non-monogamy (or why so many

    promotion

    evolutionary psychologists seem to be swingers trying to use research money to justify their predilections), but it does go to show that sleeping with people other than your ostensible mate is a cross-cultural phenomenon.



    So perhaps we should ask about the origins of our attitudes to non-monogamy. What's the historical basis between the different way that les Anglo-Saxos and les français view extra-marital, extra-curricular activities?


    The king had his official mistress, and everyone else followed suit.

    The most apparent difference is the influence of the Catholic Church. France didn't allow divorce, this theory goes, so people who couldn't stand each other any more made a tacit agreement to go their own ways while sharing the same house. The idea is appealing in its simplicity, but it's only half right: the Church's regulations on marriage, divorce, and the disposition of property were certainly influential, but they were more of an effect than a cause. Marriage in aristocratic circles was always for reasons of property and family alliance. Just so long as the business of producing an heir was taken care of, it didn't matter what you did in your spare time.



    What aristocrats did in their spare time was play the game of courtly love. The king had his official mistress, and everyone else followed suit. Fidelity was bourgeois, something for change-counters and the nouveau riche who had just bought their titles; in contrast, being a good romancer was a sign of belonging to the old-boys' club. Though coveting other men's wives may have been a sin, by the late eighteenth century, any aristocrat worth his salt maintained a stable of opera singers, prostitutes and ballet dancers. (And if a few wives happened to be thrown into the mix, well, that could be forgiven, too.)



    The Revolutions of 1789 and 1830 displaced the old aristocracy of birth with a slightly more open aristocracy of money. However, rather than inventing a new style, the new millionaire elite aped the old. Thus, the chefs de cuisine formerly working in noble châteaux found themselves cooking dinners that cost a worker's yearly wages in the kitchens of elite restaurants, the fencing masters that had trained young men to spill each others' blue blood now prepared radical journalists to duel over newspaper editorials — and the piece on the side likewise became democratized.



    With the revolutions of 1848 and 1871, the tacit acceptance of the extramarital affair climbed further down the social ladder. As it had for the aristocrats of old, taking a lover was more than a sign of social capital — it demonstrated that you had the good taste to ignore conventional morality. In France, republicanism meant libertinism for all.



    Even the style you cheated in said something about you: A petit bourgeois might lecherously grope every pretty young thing to come into his store, but a man of affairs would discreetly keep a ballet dancer or actress in her own apartment.





         

      





    Comments ( 4 )

    If you're gonna write a fluff piece, you might want to tone down the criticism of other fluff. While I'd agree with you that there is some research under the banner of Evolutionary Psychology that is very sloppy (I've published such criticisms in scientific journals), that hardly makes it a "Voodoo science." And what basis do you have for asserting that "so many evolutionary psychologists seem to be swingers trying to use research money to justify their predilections?" I've been studying this research for about a decade and I've yet to see a single study demonstrating that there are more swingers in this academic discipline than in any other. Obviously, no such study exists. You're just talking shit.

    It's fine to take shots at bad science, but to do so, you've gotta come up with something better than cheap insults and innuendo framed by a bunch of conjecture on something you obviously know little about -- despite you're having recently moved to France.

    CPR commented on Oct 15 07 at 7:02 am

    What about women playing the field? How regarded is that in any culture? Instead of being kept, where in the world is it cool that we are keeping? Or should anyone be kept? I'm thinking it is piggish either way. What we need to be is: liberated enough to be honest about our sexual needs.

    MMK commented on Oct 31 07 at 5:15 pm

    Awful piece of xenophobic ignorance.

    AM commented on Dec 01 08 at 11:16 am

    Hi Ken,
    I am writing a major feature article on western attitudes to infidelity, comparing it to France. Its part of my major project for an MA in journalism and i would love to interview you but cant find your details. My email is . Hope to hear from you,
    Jess Noble

    Jessica Noble commented on May 01 10 at 10:27 pm

    Leave a Comment