Who cut the red wire?

So much for the "explosion of conversation."

Well, since nobody asked (and really, doesn't that define the blog experience?), here are my thoughts on the Philip Weiss piece in a recent issue of New York magazine, which suggests that men have a greater biological requirement for sexual variety than women and are thus more prone to infidelity:

The short version is, what a crock of shit. 

The longer, more explanatory version is the same cop-out argument that men have been trying to make for years, and Weiss doesn't present anything new. The only reason this idea's been trotted out again is that the Eliot Spitzer case has made it "timely." 

Now, I'm not opposed to the concept that male and female sexuality could be different in fundamental, biological ways. In fact, I'd bet the farm that it is - with all the obvious physical differences between the sexes, I think it's silly to expect that men and women are exactly the same when it comes to sex, even if it's politically expedient to believe that. 

What I don't buy is the idea that men cheat because they're compelled to by some primal force that women don't share. That MIGHT be true, but there's absolutely nothing in Weiss' piece, or anything else that I've read, that offers anything close to conclusive proof. For example, Weiss gives us a version of the "spread the seed" explanation for why men want multiple partners (while also, admittedly, paying a little lip service to possible biological imperatives that might lead women to cheat). 

But no biological argument that I've encountered better explains the disparity in infidelity between men and women better than simple economic history. In a patriarchal society where men have typically held the majority of economic power, men have always had an easier time mitigating the consequences of cheating. They've had the money to keep their affairs discreet. When they've been found out, their financial power over their spouses has allowed them to convince (blackmail?) those spouses into maintaining the partnership. And typically, men who get dumped by their wives or girlfriends have been better positioned, from a financial security standpoint, to land on their feet. 

Women, meanwhile, have not historically had the independent financial security to keep their cheating a secret and because of the financial imbalance have had more to fear from a break-up. Not to mention the fact that society largely pardons men who stray, while women guilty of the same offence are labeled sluts and whores.

Nature likely does play a role in the differences in sexuality between men and women, but there's just too much "nurture" evidence to convincingly make the case that biology is the reason that husbands stray more often than wives. Chris Rock once joked in an HBO special that "A man is as faithful as his options." As women get more and more options, I wouldn't be surprised if the cheating numbers start to even out.

The Plug-osphere

Currently without an original thought, so I'm going to plug a couple of blogs by people whose thoughts are very original and worth reading.

This one's in its embryonic stages but an inside source (me) thinks it's going to be good. Get in on the ground floor and be sure to comment up a storm.

This one doesn't need my help - it belongs to a well-respected cultural anthropologist. But I've interviewed this guy for a work assignment and he's an insanely knowledgeable, enthusiastic and engaging conversationalist. These qualities come through on his blog, which is a great read for anyone who likes their anthropology, pop culture and marketing discussion served up in one highly intelligent gumbo.

Read these guys...but please come back here from time to time.

Sex bombs

With the weekend on the way, I thought I'd lob a grenade into the blog in the form of this piece in New York Magazine by Philip Weiss. Helpfully, Weiss has already pulled the pin out, and I'm hoping that this post results in an explosion of discussion. 

The article concerns cheating, prompted as it was by the Elliot Spitzer scandal. Weiss examines infidelity through the prism of male desire, dragging out well-worn chestnuts about the differences in the sexual hardwiring of men and women. I'm being reductive here, but essentially Weiss seems to feel that men are genetically programmed to require sexual variety, while women aren't (so much, at least).

A posse of female writers at Slate have had a go at the piece, and you can check out some of their musings here. My own views I'll keep to myself for now, but I'd love to hear from anyone with an opinion about the Weiss piece and the idea of fundamental differences in male and female desire for sex and sexual variety. 

And really, how can you not have an opinion on this? Is the article offensive? Is it truthful? Is it both? Please discuss.

Aftermath

I've posted so much about the Democratic primary in the past that I'd be remiss not to write something in the aftermath of Barack Obama's official clinching of his party's presidential nomination. It's just that I don't feel like I can add a whole lot to what's already been written in the last few months. And rewritten. And written yet again.

It's worth reading this piece by Slate press critic Jack Shafer, who points out that for all the talk about what Hillary did wrong, Obama did an awful lot right. He managed to defeat, however narrowly, an incredibly popular and politically savvy opponent in one of the most heated nomination contests in history. Shafer puts forth what should be a fairly obvious conclusion to draw - Obama won more than Clinton lost.

The focus on the loser is depressing given that, since the field of Democratic candidates was whittled to two, the party's nominee was guaranteed to be a glass ceiling-breaker based on either gender or race. Regardless of who won, it was supposed to represent progress for people who have been marginalized in the American political system. It's still historic, of course, but it somehow feels a little bit hollow given that so many of the supporters of both candidates hardened into such antagonistic stances. That so many Clinton supporters, in particular, say they're going to skip the election or vote for John McCain - an anti-abortion conservative whose policies are antithetical to feminism - is completely baffling, given the similarities in policies between Clinton and Obama.

There are five months to go until the general election, and Clinton will almost certainly rally her supporters to back Obama. And with more time to shine and a less impressive opponent with whom to share the spotlight, Obama is more than capable of cranking up the wattage and getting people talking about hope and unity again (hopefully with more specifics about how those things are to be achieved). 

Right now, though, there's a numb feeling. That a black (or more accurately, biracial) candidate could win the nomination should be a good omen for women. Likewise, had Clinton won, it should have been a good omen for non-white candidates. But what started as a win-win campaign has ended with an undue focus on the loser, and that, for now, has dampened the celebration.

Light weekend reading

I know what you're all thinking. You're thinking, I need something to read this weekend, preferably a well-researched history of the conservative political movement in the U.S. over the past 40 years. Well, you're in luck - when folks ask what you did this weekend, you can dazzle them by talking about the New Yorker article you read.

In all seriousness, this is a brilliant examination of recent political history, with plenty of insight on the future. It's also a great window into the mind of conservatives. If you're inclined to think of of Republican politicians as "evil," you'll definitely find some evidence to support that view. But it's rather amazing how rational and self-critical some of the conservative movement's most divisive voices, such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan, appear in the piece. 

Of course, those guys aren't in the thick of politics anymore, so they have more freedom to be sensible, but that in itself is a reminder that most politicians are a lot brighter than their media sound bites suggest.

Read it. The people you like will love and respect you. The people you don't like will never ask you about your weekend again. Win-win.

Theeeooooo...I would like to talk to yooouuuuu...

...about your chest-bumping the President!

Bush looks so uncomfortable in this photo that it's actually kind of endearing. As a former Texas Rangers owner and baseball enthusiast, he probably would have preferred to give Shiveley a pat on the ass - the customary (and undeniably homoerotic) gesture of celebration in that sport. But perhaps, with his tight white pants and exquisitely arched back, Shiveley was simply too Bootylicious for the Prez.

Awesome.

HMV clarification

Further to yesterday's post, I should clarify that HMV will still be selling CDs. I imagine they'll be relegated to some back corner, and that the young cashiers' eyebrows will raise with incredulous contempt when you bring one to the counter.