View Single Post
Old 12-11-2013, 10:26 PM
Azzy Azzy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 17

Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
I think the study itself is much more interesting and nuanced than the Huffpo blog post describing it.
After reading this, I decided to look up a different study by Anderson myself, and you are certainly correct.

Considering his own nuanced views, I wonder why Anderson seemingly chose to give such relatively conventional interview answers.

It reminds me of what Noam Chomsky said regarding media sound bites:

Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
But maybe I am reading too much into this.

Oh, and here is a link to the entire study I found, for those who are interested:

Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
For instance, in the study itself, I didn't read Anderson as agreeing with the idea that emotional infidelity was more inherently destabilizing to a monogamous relationship than sexual infidelity. I read him as saying, "Some monogamous people feel more threatened if their partners have an intense emotional connection to a third party than if their partners have a sexual connection to a third party." Which is true: Some people feel that way. Generally, people on this forum do not.
In the study I read, which Anderson titled "'At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy’': Cheating and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men"...well...Anderson decided to specifically exclude "emotional affairs" altogether.

His reasoning was as follows:

Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
Emotional monogamy reflects that of dyadic romance only. Thus, having sex with a stranger would not violate this type of monogamy, but having an emotional affair would. This category is the most complex for discussing monogamy because it includes a variety of types of affairs (work, friendship, on-line, and so forth) and because it might also potentially include polyamory, as well as considering definitional problems associated with the difference between friendship and a sexual and/or romantic relationship...
Basically, it seems that Anderson considered the "emotional affair" too complicated to include in his research, which is certainly understandable. I do wish it had been included, most likely because the person I have been in a non-sexual but romantic "secondary relationship" with is an exact demographic match to Anderson's participants in this particular study But, I can certainly see how including "emotional infidelity" would have made the interviews quite a lot more complicated.

Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
Looking at the study itself, I noticed that a lot of what seemed to make it harder for the men interviewed to negotiate for a non-monogamous relationship (let alone a poly one) fell under the heading of unexamined assumptions on their own parts-- about what it means to be a man or woman in the U.S., about what it means to love someone, about where emotional security comes from.
Well, we're discussing a different study, but yeah, there were still a lot of unexamined assumptions on the part of participants in the study I linked as well, perhaps most glaringly in the fact that even participants who cheated seemingly hated the thought of their partners having any type of extra-dyadic sexual interactions.

Originally Posted by Garriguette View Post
It seems to me that actually addressing those assumptions would make the men interviewed better capable of navigating any relationship or set of relationships-- poly, non-monogamous, or mono.

But that's not going to be news to anyone who's already excavated their own assumptions about romantic and/or sexual relationships.

Also, I see that I accidentally quoted you as bofish earlier, since I started out by responding to her post. Sorry about that.
Reply With Quote