Is Cheating Ever Okay?

This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.

Cheating

Is cheating on your partner ever okay?

For a long time, I thought the answer was “no.” And a pretty unequivocal “no,” at that. I thought that people should keep their promises — especially important promises — and if one of those promises was a promise to be monogamous, then so be it. If you weren’t willing to be monogamous, I thought, then you shouldn’t make a promise to be it.

But as the years have gone by, my thinking on this has been changing. My thinking has been changed a lot — or rather, has become clarified — by a series of columns that sex advice columnist Dan Savage has been writing about sexless marriages and relationships… and the unfairness of denying your partner sex and then getting outraged when they seek it elsewhere.

Secret diary of a call girl

And my thinking was put into sharp focus by, of all places, a recent episode of “Secret Diary of a Call Girl,” and a passing comment made on the subject by the main character, the call girl Belle.

The comment:

“Yeah, he’s married. But his wife hasn’t had sex with him for five years, so I suppose they’re both breaking the marriage contract.”

Which is the crux of my new, revised thinking about cheating.

In a perfect world, everyone would spell out their sexual desires and expectations — their Yeses and No’s and Maybes, their Must Haves and No Fucking Ways and Only If You Get Me Drunk And Buy Me Diamondses — early on in their relationships. It wouldn’t solve all these little misunderstandings; needs and desires can change, and people in love can be first-class experts at deluding themselves into thinking their piddly little problems will work themselves out. But the misunderstandings wouldn’t be quite so prevalent as they are now.

In reality, though, we don’t live in a perfect world. The imperfect reality is that there are a whole host of default assumptions that most people make when they get into relationships.

Monogamy

One of those assumptions is monogamy. In modern American culture, it’s generally assumed that a romantic and sexual relationship will be monogamous, unless you agree otherwise.

But another of these default assumptions, I think, is sex. It’s also generally assumed that a romantic and sexual relationship will be… well, sexual. (With reasonable exceptions to be made for times of illness or great stress, of course.)

And now, let’s take a look at ethics… and contracts.

Because another thing that’s generally understood in our society is that, if one person breaks their side of an agreement, the other person is under no obligation whatsoever to keep theirs.

I don’t know enough about the law to know if this concept always holds true in legal contracts (although my understanding is that it usually does). But I would argue that it does hold true in the social contract. If you promise to sweep the sidewalk on Tuesdays if your neighbor does it on Fridays, and you start blowing it off, you have no right to expect your neighbor to keep it up. If I promise to help you move if you take me out for pizza after, and I flake out on helping you move, I have no right to expect pizza. If you skank out on your half of a bargain, you have no right to assume that the other party will stick to theirs.

And I think this concept applies to sex — and monogamy — in relationships.

I wish with all my heart that more couples would spell this stuff out: talk about it openly, negotiate agreements they can both live with… both early on in their relationships, and as things shift and change. It bugs me that so many people make unthinking default assumptions about the most important decisions in their lives.

But the reality is that people do make default assumptions about relationships. Monogamy is one; continued sex is another.

Pay the piper

And if you dance, you have to pay the piper. You lie in the bed that you make. Plus whatever other cliches you can think of about taking responsibility for your actions. If you make unspoken default assumptions about your relationship — such as the assumption of monogamy — you have no right to take umbrage if your partner also makes unspoken default assumptions… such as the continuation of sex.

And if you break your side of the unspoken agreement, you have no right to act the injured party if your partner decides that they’re therefore no longer bound by it.

I realize this stuff is complicated. I realize that it’s changing. And I realize that it’s not always as clear-cut as I’ve made it out to be here. Sure, you have a right to look elsewhere for sex after five years of a sexless marriage… but what about after one year? Six months? At what point does the contract become void? Plus, I realize that unilaterally backing out on a monogamy agreement carries some responsibilities of its own. Safer sex is one; making a scrupulous, good- faith effort to repair the problems in your relationship before you go a-wandering is another. It’s no fair reneging on monogamy in a sexless marriage if you haven’t told your partner there’s a problem.

I’m just saying: If you’ve given up on sex in your relationship, you have no right to object if your partner gives up on monogamy. Yes, they broke their promise. But unless you specifically spelled out at the beginning of your relationship that your partner shouldn’t expect the good sexy times to keep rolling… then so did you.

This is Part 1 of a three- part series; Part 2 and Part 3 will appear tomorrow and the next day. I realize this is probably a fruitless request, but I’d hugely appreciate it if people would hold comments until the rest of the series is posted. Parts 2 and 3 were written largely in response to comments made when I originally posted this series on the Blowfish Blog, so you might find my response to your comment in on of the later pieces. Thanks.

Is Cheating Ever Okay?
{advertisement}

Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic

Today’s election snippet:

John McCain’s record on reproductive rights and women’s health.

Which, in a word, sucks.

We have an ever- so- charming list of 10 things that Planned Parenthood thinks everyone needs to know about John McCain. (Just 10 of the reasons that the Planned Parenthood Action Fund gave him a zero percent rating. You heard me — zero.)

In case you think they might be distorting the record, we have a collection of McCain’s own words and deeds on Roe V. Wade, sex education, birth control access, and access to information about abortion.

And we have a fun little video about the McCain Women’s Clinic.

Video below the fold.

Continue reading “Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic”

Election Snippet: The McCain Women’s Clinic

The Harm Reduction Model of Politics

I’ve talked before about the harm reduction model of life.

Today, I want to talk about the harm reduction model of politics.

I want to talk about why you often need to vote for people who you aren’t 100% in agreement with, and even have serious doubts about.

And I want to talk about why we don’t need to see this as “choosing the lesser of two evils.” I want to look at it in a more optimistic, positive way — as harm reduction.

Harm_reduction

A very quick summary about harm reduction first: In public health, harm reduction is the idea that you don’t have to completely eliminate a problem to usefully address it. In fact, trying to eliminate it can be counterproductive. It sometimes makes more sense instead to try to reduce the degree of the problem, and reduce the harm done by the problem. (That’s an oversimplification, but it’ll do for now.)

Greta’s Harm Reduction Model of Life takes this principle and applies it more broadly, to life in general. Even if you can’t completely solve a problem or make it go away, it is still worthwhile to work on making it better. If you can’t fit a perfect exercise program into your life, some exercise is still better than none; if you can’t single- handedly solve global warming, it’s still a good idea to reduce your own carbon footprint. Harm reduction isn’t always the appropriate approach to life, but it does offer a way to be both an optimist and a realist: a way to be hopeful about the future and positive about your own power to affect it, without being deluded or willfully ignorant about limitations and harsh realities.

Today, I want to apply this principle to electoral politics. And specifically, to the 2008 Presidential election.

Elections — especially elections where there are only two candidates who stand any real chance of winning — are often seen as choosing “between the lesser of two evils.” Sometimes this phrase sincerely means, “two people who are both appalling and who have very little difference between them.” But often, it gets used to mean, “two people, neither of whom I agree with 100% about everything.”

And I don’t think we need to look at that as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I think we can look at it as harm reduction.

Case in point:

BarackObamaportrait

Do I think Barack Obama will be a perfect President? No.

Do I think he will always act as I want him to, without ever disappointing me or pissing me off? No.

But do I think he will significantly reduce the harm that has been caused by the W. Bush Presidency — and that would continue to be caused by a McCain Presidency?

Yes. Absolutely. By a tremendous amount.

This isn’t a “There’s no difference between the two candidates” situation. There is a massive difference between the candidates. On the war. On the regulation of the financial industry. On abortion. On gay rights. On health care. On the environment. On virtually every issue that matters to most progressives.

And if you think there’s no discernible difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I suggest you remember what life was like when Clinton was Pres… and ponder what life has been like under W.

Clinton obama debate

I’ve heard progressives and liberals threaten to sit out this election or vote third party because Obama is not a perfect candidate. I’ve heard people threaten to sit out this election or vote third party because they think Obama was mean to Hillary Clinton in the primary; because he’s trying to finesse the same-sex marriage question in a way that’s kind of weaselly; because he has a fairly strong religious faith and dammit, they want a rational atheist in the White House; because he disagrees with them on some particular issue or other that they feel strongly about. Even if he agrees with them on 90% of everything else.

And I’m sorry if this sounds harsh — but I don’t think that’s very grown-up.

Tom tomorrow

There’s a wonderful cartoon by by Tom Tomorrow — I’m sorry that I can’t find it right now — that addresses this “lesser of two evils” question. In it, an assortment of people are pondering unpleasant choices, and saying things like, “I wonder if I should put up with this toothache — or go to the dentist?” “I wonder if I should pay this high tax bill — or go to prison?” And he points out that adult life is full of difficult decisions. Adult life is full of gray areas; situations where you have to decide which of two conflicting values you value most; choices where none of your options are what you ideally would want.

I don’t think we have to see this as a choice between the lesser of two evils. I think we can see it as harm reduction.

Barack_Obama_2008_Kuwait_10

And as gray areas and hard choices go… I don’t know about you, but this one actually seems pretty damn easy. Obama is smart, thoughtful, capable, diplomatic, incredibly well-informed, something that vaguely resembles sane, and more or less in agreement with me on most of what I care about. I am not going to cut off my nose — and the noses of everyone else who has to live in this increasingly fucked-up country — to take a hard-core principled stand on spiting my face.

Look, I get it. I get the need to send signals to — oh, say, just for instance — the Democratic Party, that if they keep taking the left for granted they’re going to lose them. And I get that sometimes, you just can’t stomach it. (Many years back, there was an election for San Francisco City Attorney in which both candidates were so utterly vile, I couldn’t bear to vote for either one… so I wound up writing in Perry Mason.)

But I would argue — strongly and passionately — that this is not that election.

This isn’t a city attorney’s race, or even a race for mayor or governor. And this isn’t 1996, when we could vote for Nader because Clinton was in the bag.

It’s too close an election to take a risk on.

And there is way, way the hell too much at stake.

Global warming

Our country — and our planet — is not just in crisis. It’s in about sixteen different crises, all of which are severe. We’re in a severe financial crisis; a disastrous war; an ecological crisis that’s already destabilizing our planet and could make it unfit for human life. Civil liberties are in a shambles. The infrastructure is in a shambles. Government accountability is in a shambles. I could go on, and on, and on.

This is not the time to be a single- issue voter. And it is not the time to be sending a message to the Democratic Party.

This is not the time to be taking a principled stand about, say, Obama’s position on national health care… and taking a chance of sending someone to the White House who is an ardent hawk in a disastrous war; an ardent deregulator in a financial crisis largely caused by deregulation; an ardent wuss about global warming in a time when the need for action on global warming is urgent verging on desperate. And who, what’s more, is elderly, likely to die in office, and has a running mate who is both flagrantly incompetent and batshit insane.

This is the time to be doing whatever you possibly can to reduce the massive harm that has been done to our country.

Obama_hope

Will President Barack Obama solve all these crises? Will he single- handedly usher in a new era of peace, prosperity, and harmony with nature?

No.

Will he always be principled and firm on the issues that matter most to us? Will he only ever compromise in the ways we would want him to compromise, or on issues that we don’t really care about all that much?

Probably not.

But will his Presidency make things better? Will it increase the quality of our lives? Will it be a far, far better Presidency — and a far, far better life for most non- stinking- rich Americans — than the one we’d get under John McCain?

Yes. Without a doubt.

If you disagree with Obama about one or more issues, then — once he’s elected — by all means, make your voice heard. Scream and shout. Hold his feet to the fire. As a citizen, that’s more than just your right — that’s your job. And if you think we should have a strong third party, then by all means, work to build it from a local level up.

But this election is way too important to screw around with.

Please don’t fail to act because you can’t act perfectly.

The Harm Reduction Model of Politics

On Having Fantasies About Acting Out Fantasies: The Blowfish Blog

Please note: This post, and the post it links to, discusses my personal sexuality, and it may be too much information for some people. Family members and others who don’t want to read about that: Please don’t read this one. Thanks.

Fantasy

I have a new piece up on the Blowfish Blog. There’s this sort of ridiculous thing that I do in my fantasy life: namely, instead of fantasizing about non-consent, I fantasize about consensually acting out fantasies of non-consent. In this piece, I try to figure out what the hell is going on with this… and I wonder aloud if anyone else does this, too. It’s called On Having Fantasies About Acting Out Fantasies, and here’s the teaser:

In the actual fantasy part of the fantasy — as opposed to the backstory part — we both get deeply into our roles. It’s clear that she’s consenting to it, even that she’s getting off on it… but it’s also clear that the role of the victim is feeling real to her. Just like the role of the perpetrator is feeling real to me. So I get to experience those dark emotions of power, forcing myself against resistance and reluctance, making someone feel frightened and violated and helpless — and getting off on it. And I get to experience those emotions in an ethical context of consent.

And I’m wondering:

What the hell is this about?

It’s a fantasy, for fuck’s sake. Of course it’s in an ethical context of consent. It’s all taking place inside my own head. You can’t get any more consensual than that. Why can’t I just have a nice, normal rape fantasy, without adding in these meta- layers of detachment from it?

And does anyone else do this?

To find out more about what this absurd mis-application of conscience is about — and to chime in about whether or not you do this, too — read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

On Having Fantasies About Acting Out Fantasies: The Blowfish Blog

Election Snippet: “Greed and Corruption”

In today’s Election Snippet: The Number One thing I noticed about the Vice-Presidential debate.

Sarah Palin kept talking about the “corruption and greed” in Wall Street that led to the current financial crisis.

But she had not one thing single to say about what she would do to rein it in.

“Greed and corruption” was clearly a mantra. She knows that people are pissed at greedy, corrupt bankers and rich financial muckety-mucks, so she chimed in over and over to say Bad Things about them. But she’s certainly not going to say, “The financial industry needs to be better regulated.” That’s counter to the Republican true belief in the power of the free market to fix all problems, to cure cancer and find lost puppies and bring peace and prosperity to all people across the galaxy. And it would remind people that eight years of Republican rule and deregulation and sucking the collective cock of the stinking rich was a huge part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

No, no, no. Better to just try to make people think you feel their pain and anger… while conveniently ignoring that your party is the one inflicting it, and utterly failing to offer any plans for what you’re going to do about it.

Election Snippet: “Greed and Corruption”

Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People

So, as you may have already read, Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath has recently written that the cause of the current U.S. financial crisis is — not deregulation, not unchecked greed, not insane short-sightedness on the part of the financial muckety-mucks, but…

…wait for it…

Pink_triangle.svg
gay people.

No, really.

More specifically, God’s wrath at gay people.

In yet another example of God’s spectacularly lousy aim. (I mean, if he was trying to punish the sinfully homosexual San Francisco in the 1989 earthquake, why was the overwhelmingly heterosexual Marina district hit the hardest, and the overwhelmingly homosexual Castro district left relatively unharmed?)

So since gay people seem to have such astonishing power to destroy (our secret is out at last! Now I’ll have to kill you all!), I thought I’d come up with a list of the Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People.

Cubs_logo

10: The Chicago Cubs.

9: The fact that your cousin ran out of liquor at his bachelor party.

8: The ultimate heat-death of the universe. (Or the ultimate Big Freeze of the universe. Take your pick.)

7: The fact that, after having lived in this apartment for three years, Ingrid and I still have a storage room piled full of unpacked boxes. (No, wait. That is the fault of gay people.)

Black_Death

6: The death of a third to a half of the population of Europe in the Middle Ages due to the Black Death. Retroactively. Our power for evil is so vast, and God’s wrath towards it is so massive, that it can strike backwards in time.

5: “Star Wars,” Episodes 1-3.

Austin scarlett

4: Austin Scarlett getting voted off “Project Runway,” and Wendy Pepper making it to the final three at Bryant Park.

3: The fact that Jane Austen only wrote seven complete novels.

2: The Boston Molasses Disaster of 1919. (No kidding. Look it up.)

And the Number One catastrophe that fundamentalists blame on gay people:

Firefly

1: The cancellation of “Firefly.”

Please chime in with your own suggestions!

Top Ten Other Catastrophes That Fundamentalists Blame On Gay People

Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie”

Today’s election snippet comes from, of all people, Matt Damon. I know. I was surprised, too. But he turns out to be smart, and thoughtful, and articulate, and kind of weirdly radical. There’s no new news in this, btw: it’s just a really perceptive, really scary analysis of the potential Palin Presidency.

Reminder: If McCain becomes President, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. A very weak heartbeat. McCain has, conservatvely estimated, a 1 in 3 chance of dying in office. In his first term alone.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Palin. Remember that, and watch this video. (Video below the jump.)

Continue reading “Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie””

Election Snippet: The Palin Presidency “like a really bad Disney movie”

And Now, A Brief Pledge Break

Pledge_thermometer

We’ll return to our program, “The One Inescapably Convincing Argument That There Is No God,” in just a moment. But first:

Won’t you consider supporting this blog?

We have some wonderful gifts for those who do!

After over three years of blogging, I’ve come to the conclusion that blogging isn’t like any other publishing medium. And it doesn’t earn income like any other publishing medium. As much fun as I’m having with it — and as much fun as y’all seem to be having with it — the “time spent/ income earned” ratio for it is kind of insane. This blog isn’t like a magazine or a newspaper or a book publishing company. This blog is more like public radio.

Which is brought to you by generous donations from readers like you.

If you’ve enjoyed great new posts like Blind Men and Elephants, John McCain and the “Maverick” Snow Job, and The Top Ten Reasons I Don’t Believe In God — or classics such as Broccoli or Tofu? Sexual Differences in Relationships and The Unexplained, the Unproven, and the Unlikely — then won’t you consider supporting this blog with a small contribution?

And if you do donate or subscribe, here’s what you get in return!

Anyone who subscribes to my blog (an automatic $5 donation a month for 12 months) — or who makes a one-time donation of $60 or more — will get a signed copy of their choice of any of my three books:

Bec_2008_small
Best Erotic Comics 2008

Thrkin
Three Kinds of Asking For It

Payfor

or Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for their Clients.

Just email me (greta at gretachristina dot com) with a name and mailing address when you make a donation. I’ll even take requests for how to sign it, if they’re not unreasonable.

You can go the subscription route, which spreads your donation out in small increments over a longer period. (A subscription to my blog is $5 a month for 12 months.) Or you can make a one-time donation, and that can be for any amount. Even small donations would be very much appreciated. You can use a credit card if you don’t have a PayPal account, or your PayPal account if you do. And if you don’t want to use the PayPal system at all, you can send a check or money order to:

Greta Christina
PO Box 40844
San Francisco, CA 94140-0844

(And if you’ve donated in the past, but never gave me your address so I could send you your book — please do that today! I’d love to show you my gratitude.)

Like public radio, donations and subscriptions to this blog are a big part of what enables me to keep blogging. They let me work my day job at less than full time, and free my time up to write. And they free my time up, not only to write, but to write better. (The last time I did a pledge drive, I promised to spend more doing research for my blogging; John McCain and the “Maverick” Snow Job is Exhibit A.)

The world of writing is changing. The old model of print publication is getting less and less viable as a way for mid-level, not- insanely- famous writers to pay their rent… and the new model of internet publication is still finding its feet. But I passionately love blogging — not just my blogging, but all blogging, the basic fact of blogging, the very idea of it — and I want this to be a world where blogging is a viable career option for writers.

Please help make that work.

If you can, please donate or subscribe. Thanks!

And now we return you to our program.

And Now, A Brief Pledge Break

Election Snippet: The McCain Campaign and Invalid Absentee Ballots

Today’s election snippet comes from the Racine Post:

GOP absentee ballot mailings called voter fraud

Democratic voters in at least two Wisconsin communities have received absentee voter forms from the McCain campaign that — if used — could cause their votes to be ignored.

Read the whole story. Nice. Let’s hear it for the straight- talking maverick who wants to clean up government.

Election Snippet: The McCain Campaign and Invalid Absentee Ballots