Monogamy and the Naturalistic Fallacy

The Nut pointed me to this article on monogamy at Generative Transformation. In a lot of ways, Brandon Peele's blog reminds me of my own. Brandon's blog is a chronicle of his personal growth. I often think of Shades Of Grey in the same way, though when I write my posts, it is never with that purpose in mind. I consider myself a liberal, and so does Brandon. And apparently we write about the same subjects -- I've written in favor of nonmonogamous relationships here and here. While I really like Brandon's introspective nature and willingness to question the status quo, there are more than a few things wrong with his post on monogamy.

He starts by asking the question: What is the point of having strong urges, such as an "instinct to mate with virtually every female I see," if he is not to indulge them? It's already apparent from his phrasing that his exploration of this question and its related issues will be deeply entrenched in the Naturalistic Fallacy. Of course, Brandon believes in the existence of a higher power, so perhaps that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It is very difficult to reconcile the belief that things are the way they are because that's how it is supposed to be with the observation that many people are hurt by the "natural order."

To answer Brandon's question, there is no point. Evolution, in the biological sense, does not have a purpose. True, if humans didn't have a biological instinct to mate, the species wouldn't propagate, but don't make the mistake of thinking that because we exist there must be a greater reason for it. Evolution is not directed. Just as there is no "Natural Law" stating that creating homo sapiens was the purpose of evolution, there is no law of nature dictating that a person should or should not indulge in his desire to have sex. It is fallacious to look toward one's biology for answers about one's morality.

Brandon also wants to know why having sex with multiple partners is incompatible with the norms of our society. This is a question that I am sympathetic to. In the past I've been an advocate of normalizing nonmonogamous relationships. My position isn't that I want monogamous relationship to disappear from our society, it's that I want to get rid of the assumption that every committed relationship must be monogamous. However, Brandon attacks the problem through the lense of naturalism.

My questions is, is marriage/monogamy natural? Is it a convenience of modern society put in place to counter streets full of bastards and orphans and provide for a stable, predictable and submissive populace? Is it an evolutionary imperative?

And again:

Men, much moreso than women it appears, are easily taken beneath deck to operate from their limbic or reptilian brain, not their neocortex or complex human brain. The limbic system is often called the reptilian brain because it first appeared in evolution in reptiles and is responsible for our emotional drives, especially relating fear and sex instincts.

You can probably see where this is going:

So what can we do? Is marriage as an institution doomed? We don’t have to do anything and no it’s not doomed. But feel free to join me in telling the world to fuck off with respect to how it thinks we should and shouldn't act. Let us obey only ourselves, our inner compass, our inner warrior. As men we need only keep in mind these things:

1. Hold our spouse's best interest in our hearts, aka Golden Rule. It would suck to have another dude put his dick in your wife. Guess what? She feels the same way.

...

This is all fine and good, but what about those marriage vows? Women are nuts for vows. Most men can't even remember them. We hate to give up our autonomy - to listen to anyone tell us what and what not to do once, much less let someone set the vision for the rest of our lives in this manner.

I don't understand why we need all these rules. It's not like they don't get broken everyday. Why set something up for failure? Why can't we just align intentions? Just agree to work towards a common vision for the world, your family, your marriage, etc. and see which actions, including infidelity fall within this vision.

...

Isn't a marriage about trust? Isn't trust the foundation of love? If there is trust, then there need not be a covenant. The desire to anchor and tie oneself down to an ascribed way of being is not an action of love, rather fear, the need for security.

These quotes certainly don't do anything to quell my suspicion that this entire discussion is a complicated way to rationalize cheating on one's spouse. Part of the problem, again, is a heavy reliance on the Naturalistic Fallacy. Brandon sees that we have a society that is structured around monogamy and assumes that because that's the way things are, that's how they should be. But he also sees that men in our society claim the right to play the field, and once again assumes that because that's how it is, that's how it should be. When he's being honest with himself, he knows that monogamy isn't the optimal situation for him. So the question is how to reconcile his observations with his beliefs. And he does it by blaming women for his problems.

To be fair, he doesn't actually blame women so much as the way women are. Women, according to Brandon, are naturally more interested in long term commitments than men are, it's part of their biology. But regardless of how you justify it, the net effect is the same: Brandon believes that he is being held back by womanly vows. He thinks we men should learn to be more manly by listening to our "inner warrior." We shouldn't feel it necessary to be bound by our promises, because that's against the natural order. But women should be bound by a different set of rules entirely, because "it would suck to have another dude put his dick in your wife," and anyway, they aren't built the same as us. Under the system that Brandon seems to be advocating, it's okay for men to be jealous when their partners sleep with other men, because men own their women's sexuality. But only because women want to be owned.

Creating different sets of rules for different classes of people is the classic recipe for oppression. And as Amanda recently pointed out, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a favored tool of oppressors everywhere. Brandon needs to get out more. Men aren't the only one who want the freedom of having multiple partners. The sooner our society stops oppressing women while simultaneously pretending that it is only natural that we should do so, the sooner there will be more women comfortable with admitting that they would like to have sex with multiple partners.

But the other thing about Brandon's post that makes me feel like he is rationalizing cheating is that, well, he pretty much says so himself: "Just agree to work towards a common vision for the world, your family, your marriage, etc. and see which actions, including infidelity fall within this vision." Far from condemning lying to one's spouse, he says that honesty in relationships can be optional. That's something I just can't get behind, and at times Brandon seems to agree: "Isn't a marriage about trust? Isn't trust the foundation of love?"

Of course, if you want trust, you certainly wouldn't condone lying to your spouse, which is what infidelity is.

Brandon ends his article with this:

To be in love is to be free. Are you free in your love?

After his admission that he would not like it if another man slept with his girlfriend, I must admit that this ending perplexes me. He wants the freedom to have sex with whomever he wants without granting the same freedom to his partners. It seems to me that if his girlfriend were to ask the same question, she would answer in the negative.