Good, giving and game: Thank you, Dan Savage & Mark Oppenheimer

 culture  No Responses »
Jul 022011
 

In this weekend’s New York Times Magazine, Mark Oppenheimer writes about marriage and infidelity in one of the most compelling and thoughtful ways that I’ve seen.  His article is called “Marriage, with Infidelities,” and it’s started quite a conversation in the “comments” area online, with 431 as of this blog post.  Oppenheimer writes the Beliefs column for The Times, and in my mind that makes his work this weekend all the more powerful and important to consider.  You can read more by and about Mark Oppenheimer here. The title of my blog post refers to a phrase that Dan Savage uses, and you’ll have to read the article to find out what it means.  If you don’t know Dan Savage’s work already, you really should, and you will know more after reading Oppenheimer’s article.

The ideas of monogamy and fidelity have been at the center of my creative work for the past five years, most notably through my play III about the 15-year menage between George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott, and Monroe Wheeler from 1927-1943, and then my more recent play open heart featuring verbatim interview excepts from 15 gay and bisexual men, some of them coupled, talking about their experiences in open, non-monogamous relationships with other men.  Both plays focus on relationships between men, but each time they were produced, the thoughtful comments coming from people of all sexual orientations, drawing parallels to their own experiences in long-term, committed relationships, excited me beyond my expectations and affirmed for me that people want and need to talk about these issues.

Oppenheimer’s article uses Dan Savage’s ideas on monogamy and marriage as a way into the discussion, but then he carries that conversation into deeper territory by repeatedly highlighting the idea that ultimately a loving, committed relationship between two (or more) people requires honesty and communication and an understanding of all parties’ realistic expectations around relationship monogamy.  Oppenheimer and The Times are already taking some flack for the article, and that’s understandable.  People who have been burned by dishonesty in a relationship (“Raise your hand if you’re Sure”) probably don’t want to read about how infidelity might be “OK” for a relationship to encounter and endure.  I’m not opposed to monogamy nor am I advocating for anyone to enter into a relationship that s/he isn’t comfortable with.  If monogamy is for you, then go for it.  However, Oppenheimer’s article does a great job of examining our historical and current relationship constructs and how these have led us to an assumption of monogamy rather than a choice for monogamy.  And for me that’s the key.  Assumptions about marriage and commitment have been wreaking havoc for a long time now, and this article effectively points out that it’s time for us to stop making asses out of each other.  Have the conversations, people.

I really want to encourage anyone in a relationship or contemplating a relationship to read this article.  It’s a thoughtful exploration of a difficult topic written in a very accessible way.  It’s not a conversion piece by any means, but rather an intelligent exploration of what it means to commit to another person in the 21st century.

Strauss-Kahn and the Terminator: not the same thing

 culture  No Responses »
May 192011
 

I’ve been following these stories about Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s rape charge and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s infidelity with quiet interest, not because I’m shocked at the revelations but more so because of the media frenzy around both incidents. Shocker.  If you read my blog, you know that media coverage pushes my buttons.

The Strauss-Kahn rape allegations are ugly, and his recent resignation from the IMF illustrates the gravity of the situation.  Based on his past reputation as a womanizer, this newest accusation does not sit well, but let’s be clear about something: womanizing and rape are two very different things.  Womanizing is not admirable; rape is criminal.  So when the media lumps Strauss-Kahn and the Terminator together and asks questions like, “Why do powerful men cheat?” (Anderson Cooper tweet on May 17), we need to take stock of how we’re thinking about these two very different incidents.

While Maria Shriver has every right to divorce Schwarzenegger over this new revelation involving his fathering a child with their housekeeper, we need to keep this in perspective.  Nothing has been revealed to indicate that the relationship that produced this child was not consensual.  Schwarzenegger did not rape the housekeeper.  But yet this newest piece of information has been added on to the Strauss-Kahn story, and people are now asking questions about infidelity and male sexuality and so on.

The Schwarzenegger incident is not only about male sexuality; it’s about honesty.  There are plenty of examples from throughout history of men having mistresses.  We know this, and to a certain extent, we accept it.  Far more easily in European countries.  The puritanical Pilgrims that many of us descend from have left us with a strong moral system in the US.  It’s not easy to get out from under notions of “right” and “wrong” when it comes to something like infidelity.  People have trouble accepting the grey.  But what about this?  How would the situation have been different for Maria and Arnold if they had discussed it?  Could an acknowledged mistress have been an option?  Does the infidelity say that Arnold doesn’t love Maria?

People question Hillary Clinton’s choice to stay with Bill, but she seems to be perfectly fine.  I would venture to say that Hillary and Bill have had some honest conversations with each other about what their relationship means and why they stay together.  Cynics say that they stay together to be a powerful couple.  I think that’s too easy.  People will now ask how Anne Sinclair could ever stay with Dominique Strauss-Kahn.  If he raped that woman in the hotel, I’d have to agree with them.  But maybe Anne Sinclair can live with the womanizing.  If it turns out that Strauss-Kahn is simply a womanizer, then maybe their relationship doesn’t change.

Love and relationships are complicated.  Judging actions like Schwarzenegger’s makes me think about throwing stones and living in a glass house.  Wondering about “male sexuality” raises flags for me.  Schwarzenegger and Shriver seem to have had some communication issues.  Strauss-Kahn may have some sex-power issues.  But let’s not reduce these very complex situations to a sound byte.  Our society needs to be smarter than that.