This source presents an in-depth exploration of female infidelity and non-monogamy through various lenses, examining historical, anthropological, sociological, and personal perspectives. The text investigates the motivations behind women’s choices regarding sexual exclusivity, societal reactions to “adulteresses,” and the historical and cultural forces that have shaped perceptions of female sexuality. By incorporating research, interviews, and anecdotes, the author challenges conventional understandings of monogamy and explores the complexities of female desire and autonomy in relationships. Ultimately, the work seeks to understand the woman who steps outside traditional boundaries and the broader lessons her experiences offer about partnership and commitment.
Untrue: Reassessing Female Infidelity
Female infidelity is a complex topic that challenges long-standing societal beliefs and assumptions about women, sex, and relationships. The source “01.pdf” argues that despite the prevailing notion of women being inherently monogamous, driven by the higher “cost” of their eggs and a presumed desire for one “great guy,” female infidelity is far from uncommon and warrants open-minded consideration.
Prevalence of Female Infidelity:
The statistics surrounding female infidelity vary, ranging from 13 percent to as high as 50 percent of women admitting to being unfaithful to a spouse or partner. Some experts even suggest that the numbers might be higher due to the significant social stigma attached to women admitting to infidelity. Notably, data from 2013 showed that women were roughly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their husbands than they had been in 1990, while men’s rates remained relatively stable. Furthermore, surveys in the 1990s and later have indicated a closing of the “infidelity gap” between men and women, with younger women even reporting more affairs than their male peers in some studies. This trend suggests that with increased autonomy, earning power, and digital connections, women are engaging in infidelity more frequently, though they may not be talking about it openly.
Motivations Behind Female Infidelity:
The source challenges the traditional binary of men seeking sex and women seeking emotional connection in affairs. Interviews with women who have been unfaithful reveal that their motivations are diverse and can include:
- Strong libido and not feeling cut out for monogamy.
- Desire for sexual gratification and excitement. Alicia Walker’s study of women on Ashley Madison found that they often sought out affairs for the sex they were not getting in their marriages.
- Feeling a sense of bold entitlement for connection, understanding, and sex.
- Craving variety and novelty of sexual experience.
- Experiencing sexual excitement autonomously and disconnected from their partners. Marta Meana’s research highlights “female erotic self-focus,” where women derive arousal from their own sexiness.
- Unhappiness or sexual dissatisfaction within the marriage. However, the source emphasizes that women also cheat even when they are not overtly unhappy.
- Increased exposure to potential partners, more time apart from spouses, and greater financial independence due to more women being in the workforce.
- Technology providing discreet opportunities for extra-pair coupling.
- Simply wanting to act on their desires and fulfill a fantasy, as illustrated by the character Issa in the series “Insecure”.
- Boredom in a relationship, with Kristen Mark’s research suggesting women might be more prone to boredom early in a relationship.
Social Perceptions and Stigma:
Despite its prevalence, female infidelity remains heavily stigmatized. The source argues that society reacts to women who are “untrue” with condemnation, a desire to control and punish them, and a conviction that something must be “done” about them. This is because women who cheat violate not just a social script but also a cherished gender script that dictates female sexual passivity and monogamy. The reactions can range from being labeled “unusual” to being called “immoral,” “antisocial,” and a “violation of our deepest notions of how women naturally are and ‘should be’”. Even within progressive circles, a woman who has an affair is likely to face harsh judgment. The author notes personal experiences of encountering discomfort and even hostility when discussing the topic, often facing questions about her husband’s opinion, implying her research makes her a “slut by proxy”. This double standard is highlighted by the fact that men’s “ho phase” is often accepted, while women are not afforded the same leniency. The fear of reputational damage and the potential for a financially devastating divorce also heavily influence women’s decisions regarding monogamy.
Historical and Evolutionary Context:
The source delves into historical and anthropological perspectives, suggesting that female monogamy is not necessarily a timeless and essential norm. Primatological research challenges the idea of sexually passive females and highlights a preference for sexual novelty among female non-human primates. The source also points to societies with practices like the Mosuo “walking marriage” in China and informal polyandry in various cultures, where women have multiple partners with little or no social censure, suggesting that female multiple mating has a long history and prehistory. Studies among the Himba people of Namibia even indicate that female infidelity can be widespread, openly acknowledged, and even beneficial for women and their offspring. This challenges the Western notion of female adultery as inherently risky and wrong.
Female Autonomy and Entitlement:
The book posits that female infidelity can be viewed as a metric of female autonomy and a form of seizing privileges historically belonging to men. The logical horizon of movements like #MeToo is seen as potentially opening cultural space for female sexual entitlement, where women feel inherently deserving of sexual exploration and pleasure, just as men do. Women who cheat often do so because they feel a sense of bold entitlement for connection and sex. However, this assertion of autonomy often comes with significant personal costs and societal backlash.
Rethinking Monogamy:
The source suggests that compulsory monogamy can be a feminist issue, as the lack of female sexual autonomy hinders true female autonomy. There is a growing recognition that monogamy can be a difficult practice that requires ongoing commitment. Some experts propose viewing monogamy as a continuum rather than a rigid binary. The source also touches on alternative relationship models like open relationships and the concept of “monogamish”. Psychoanalysts challenge the expectation that partners should fulfill all of each other’s needs, suggesting that affairs might be seen as “private” rather than “pathological” in some contexts.
The “Infidelity Workaround”:
Alicia Walker’s research highlights the concept of the “infidelity workaround,” where women engage in extra-marital affairs not necessarily because they want to leave their marriages, but as a way to fulfill unmet sexual or emotional needs without dismantling their existing lives. These women often report feeling more empowered and experiencing a boost in self-esteem.
Conclusion:
“Untrue” argues that our understanding of female infidelity needs a significant reevaluation. It challenges the traditional narrative of female sexual reticence and passivity, presenting evidence that women are just as capable of desiring and seeking out sexual experiences outside of monogamous relationships as men are. The book suggests that female sexuality is assertive, pleasure-centered, and potentially more autonomous than traditionally believed. Ultimately, the decision to be monogamous or not is deeply personal and context-dependent, influenced by a woman’s environment, desires, risk tolerance, and social support. The source encourages a more empathetic and understanding view of women who reject monogamy, recognizing their bravery in challenging societal norms and the valuable lessons their experiences can offer about female longing, lust, and the future of partnership.
Consensual Non-Monogamy: Forms, Motivations, and Perceptions
Consensual non-monogamy (CNM) is an umbrella term for relationship styles where all involved partners openly agree to the possibility of having romantic or sexual relationships with other people. This is in direct contrast to undisclosed or non-consensual non-monogamy, also known as cheating. The source “01.pdf” discusses CNM in detail, exploring its various forms, motivations, societal perceptions, and its growing presence in contemporary culture.
Forms of Consensual Non-Monogamy:
The source identifies three main types of non-monogamy, which can sometimes overlap:
- Open Relationships: In these arrangements, couples agree to see other people, but they might not necessarily want to discuss the details or even be fully aware of their partner’s activities. The approach is often summarized as, “You go play, but I don’t want to hear about it”.
- Swinging: This involves committed couples engaging in sexual activities with others, either individually or as a pair. Communication about their activities is typical, and they may participate in events like conventions or sex clubs to meet like-minded individuals. The primary relationship within the dyad remains the central focus.
- Polyamory: This is the practice of having multiple romantic, sexual, and/or intimate partners with the full knowledge and consent of all involved. Polyamorous individuals often believe in the capacity to love more than one person simultaneously and tend to prioritize deeper emotional connections, sometimes without establishing a hierarchy among partners. Polyamory can involve various living arrangements, such as “throuples” or larger groups, and often necessitates significant communication, ground rules, and regular check-ins.
Motivations for Consensual Non-Monogamy:
People choose CNM for various reasons. According to the source:
- It caters to individuals who don’t inherently desire or find it easy to be monogamous and prefer not to lie about their needs.
- CNM can be seen as a way to live more authentically without the secrecy and hypocrisy that can accompany infidelity.
- For some, it might be a solution to the inherent difficulties of lifelong sexual exclusivity within a single relationship.
- The rise of CNM could also be linked to a growing recognition that monogamy might not be “natural” or easy to sustain over long periods.
Societal Perceptions and Challenges:
Despite its increasing visibility, CNM still faces significant societal challenges and diverse reactions:
- Many people hold the view that non-monogamy “does not work” and that therapists working with such couples are merely “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic”.
- Some clinicians may have a skewed and negative view of non-monogamy because they primarily encounter individuals in crisis. However, research suggests that individuals in CNM relationships generally report high levels of relationship satisfaction and happiness, with jealousy levels comparable to those in monogamous relationships.
- Talking about CNM can be awkward or even lead to negative judgment. The author even found it easier to describe her book as being about “female autonomy” rather than explicitly about non-monogamy.
- Some view polyamory, in particular, as a radical stance that challenges the traditional binary thinking and the primacy of the dyad in Western societies.
- The “relentless candor” often advocated in ethical non-monogamy can be perceived by some as a form of social control that infringes on privacy.
- Practically, navigating the logistical and emotional complexities of multiple involvements, along with balancing careers and other responsibilities, can be challenging. The lack of institutional support for non-monogamous relationships, such as marriage licenses, also presents hurdles.
Historical and Cultural Context:
The source notes that intentional non-monogamy is not entirely new, with historical examples ranging from Romantic poets and transcendentalists to the “free love” movements of the 1970s. The term “consensual non-monogamy” itself is relatively recent, gaining traction around the year 2000. The current surge in interest in CNM is considered a “third wave,” marked by increased discussion in mainstream media, the appearance of non-monogamous relationships in popular culture, and a rise in online searches for related terms. This suggests a growing awareness and perhaps acceptance of relationship styles beyond traditional monogamy.
Shifting Perspectives:
The increasing visibility of CNM, along with research challenging traditional assumptions about sexuality and relationships, suggests a potential reconsideration of lifelong sexual exclusivity as the sole model for committed partnerships. Some experts propose viewing monogamy as a continuum rather than a strict binary. The rise of terms like “monogamish” reflects the search for alternatives to compulsory monogamy. Ultimately, the source suggests that the decision to be monogamous or not is a deeply personal one, influenced by individual desires, context, and social support.
Female Sexual Autonomy: Beyond Monogamy
Discussing sexual autonomy, as presented in the sources, revolves heavily around the concept of female sexual autonomy and the historical and societal forces that have often constrained or denied it. The sources reveal a persistent tension between prescribed norms of sexual behavior, particularly for women, and the individual’s right to self-determination in their sexual life.
The author’s personal journey into exploring female infidelity and consensual non-monogamy was driven by questions about what is sexually normal for women and why it seemed so difficult for women to be true to their desires. This exploration led to a challenge of the presumption that there was one right or best way to be in a couple or relationship and a new understanding of how and why women refuse sexual exclusivity or simply long to. Attending a workshop on consensual non-monogamy prompted reflection on the surrender of “complete, dizzying sexual autonomy and self-determination” for the security of a dyadic relationship.
The sources highlight how society often reacts negatively to women who refuse sexual exclusivity, whether openly or secretly. The author even found it easier to describe her work as being about “female autonomy” rather than explicitly about infidelity, to avoid judgment. The idea that compulsory monogamy is a feminist issue is raised, suggesting that without female sexual autonomy, true female autonomy is impossible.
The book itself aims to carve out a space where the woman who refuses sexual exclusivity is not automatically stigmatized. It suggests that negotiating how we will be sexual is often a series of false choices rather than real options for women in the US, challenging us to rethink what it means to be female and self-determined. The deeply ingrained social script about female sexual reticence often means that women who exercise self-control regarding desires they are “not even supposed to desire” receive no credit.
The importance of context in understanding a woman’s decision to be monogamous or not is emphasized, including her environment, ecology, sexual self, agreements with partners, support systems, culture, and access to resources. There is no single “best choice” because there is no one context.
Several examples and research findings in the sources underscore the complexity and potential for female sexual autonomy:
- The study of the Himba people suggests that sexual and social behaviors are malleable and depend on context, indicating that women’s reproductive success can be tied to circumstances that may involve non-monogamy.
- Primatological research challenges the traditional view of “coy, choosy” females, revealing that in many species, females actively initiate copulations. The example of bonobos, a female-dominant species with frequent sexual activity among females, raises questions about whether human female sexuality might be more aligned with pleasure-focused and promiscuous tendencies than traditionally assumed, and if environment plays a key role in shaping behavior.
- Research by Meredith Chivers suggests that female desires might be stronger and less category-bound than previously believed, questioning the “sacred cow” of a gender difference in sexual desire. This implies a greater potential for autonomous sexual desires in women.
- Marta Meana’s work on “female erotic self-focus” highlights the idea that women’s arousal can significantly emanate from their erotic relationship with themselves, suggesting a wonderful autonomy in female sexuality.
- Experiences of women at Skirt Club, a “play party” environment, suggest that having sexual experiences outside of heterosexual relationships can make women feel more entitled to communicate about what they want sexually within their primary relationships, indicating a growth in sexual autonomy.
Conversely, the sources also illustrate the historical lack of recognition and even pathologization of female sexual desire that deviates from the monogamous ideal:
- Historical figures like Acton and Krafft-Ebing perpetuated the idea of women as having small sexual desire, suggesting dire social consequences if this were not the case.
- The case of “Mrs. B.” in the 19th century, who confided in her doctor about her vivid adulterous fantasies, highlights the extreme worry a woman might have felt about her libido given prevailing beliefs about female asexuality.
- The persistence of the double standard, where male infidelity is often viewed differently than female infidelity, demonstrates the ongoing limitations on female sexual autonomy.
Ultimately, the sources advocate for a broader understanding of female sexuality that acknowledges its potential for autonomy, fluidity, and diversity, free from restrictive societal expectations and historical biases. The decision for a woman to be monogamous or not is deeply personal and contingent on a multitude of factors, and the exploration of consensual non-monogamy and female infidelity provides valuable insights into the complexities of sexual autonomy.
Historical Roots of Monogamy and Female Sexuality
The historical context is crucial to understanding the discussions around female sexual autonomy and consensual non-monogamy in the sources. The text highlights several key historical periods and developments that have significantly shaped our current beliefs and attitudes.
One important aspect is the discussion of early human societies. The sources suggest that contrary to the 1950s-inflected notion of a monogamous pair bond, early Homo life history was characterized by social cooperation, including cooperative breeding, which was a successful reproductive strategy. This involved coalitions of cooperating females and of cooperating males and females, suggesting a more fluid and communal approach to relationships and child-rearing. In ecologies favoring hunting and gathering, where women were primary producers, a degree of egalitarianism and generosity with food, child-rearing, and sexuality was often in everyone’s best interest.
The text emphasizes the profound impact of the advent of agriculture, particularly plough agriculture, on gender roles and female self-determination. This agricultural shift, beginning around the sixth millennium BC, led to a gendered division of labor, where men primarily worked in the fields with the plough while women were relegated more to the domestic sphere. This change is linked to the development of anxieties about female infidelity and lower social status for women. Societies with a history of plough agriculture show markedly lower levels of female participation in politics and the labor force and embrace more gender-biased attitudes, a legacy that persists even generations later across different ecologies and despite economic and technological changes. The study authors suggest that norms established during plough agriculture became ingrained in societal policies, laws, and institutions, reinforcing the belief that “A woman’s place is in the home”.
The sources also delve into historical examples of constraints on female sexuality and the punishment of infidelity. In the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies in the 17th century, adultery, particularly by women, was viewed as a severe crime, a breaking of the marriage bond and a violation of the husband’s property rights. Mary Mendame was whipped and forced to wear an “AD” for having sex with an “Indian”. Interestingly, during this period, men, even if married, could have relations with unmarried women and be accused of the lesser crime of fornication. This exemplifies a clear double standard in the enforcement of sexual morality.
The text touches upon the historical construction of female sexual passivity. Influential figures like Darwin, Acton, and Krafft-Ebing suggested that females are inherently less eager and require to be courted, while men are more ardent and courageous. These ideas became prevalent and served to reinforce rigid gender scripts. Bateman’s research in the mid-20th century, though later challenged, further solidified the notion of biologically based differences in male and female sexual strategies.
The “first wave” of intentional non-monogamy is traced back to the Romantic poets and transcendentalists who experimented with group living and sex in communities like Brook Farm and Oneida Community in the 19th century. The “second wave” in the 1970s involved the free love, communal living, open relationships, and swinging movements, which were seen as a radical break with tradition. Notably, the term “consensual non-monogamy” itself appears to have been first used around the year 2000.
The impact of World War I and World War II on gender roles is also discussed. During these periods, when men went to war, women took on roles traditionally held by men in agriculture and industry. This demonstrated female competence and autonomy. However, after the wars, there was a societal push to return women to the domestic sphere through various means, reinforcing the idea of a woman’s place in the home.
The sources also provide glimpses into historical perspectives from different cultures. For instance, among the pre-contact Wyandot, women had significant agency, including sexual autonomy and the right to choose partners, with trial marriages being a common practice. Similarly, in Tahiti, sex was viewed more communally and openly. These examples contrast sharply with the restrictive norms that became dominant in Western societies, often influenced by religious beliefs and the shift to agriculture.
The narrative also highlights how female power has historically been linked with sexuality and deception. The story of Jezebel in the Old Testament is presented as an example of the vilification of a powerful woman who challenged the established patrilineal order. In ancient Greece, adultery by married women was considered a serious crime with severe social consequences, reflecting anxieties about lineage and citizenship, which were tied to legitimate offspring in a wheat-based agricultural society. The story of Clytemnestra in The Oresteia further illustrates the suppression of female power and autonomy, both sexual and legal, in an emerging masculinist order. Even in ancient Rome, while adultery was initially a private matter, under Augustus, it became a crime punishable by death for both parties, coinciding with the consolidation of his power and the symbolic importance of agriculture (wheat) in Roman life. The exile of Augustus’s daughter Julia for her open affairs demonstrates how even noble women could be subjected to social control regarding their sexuality when it challenged male authority.
The experiences of Virginia, a woman born in the early 20th century, highlight how context, culture, and constraint have shaped experiences of sexuality and sexual autonomy over time. Raised Catholic with strict prohibitions around kissing, birth control, and premarital sex, her life spanned significant societal shifts, underscoring the evolving nature of sexual norms and expectations.
By examining these various historical contexts, the sources aim to challenge the notion that current Western norms around monogamy and female sexuality are natural or timeless. Instead, they reveal these norms to be the product of specific historical, economic, and cultural developments, particularly the impact of agriculture and the enduring legacy of gendered power dynamics.
The Historical Construction and Impact of Gender Roles
The sources provide a comprehensive discussion of gender roles, particularly focusing on their historical construction and the persistent impact they have on female sexual autonomy and broader societal structures.
The Influence of Agriculture: A significant portion of the discussion centers on the impact of plough agriculture on the formation of rigid gender roles. The introduction of the plough led to a gendered division of labor, with men primarily engaged in outdoor farming and women specializing in indoor domestic work and childcare. This division, where men were seen as primary producers and women as engaged in secondary production, gave rise to beliefs about the “natural role of women” as being inside the home and less vital to subsistence.
This agricultural shift is linked to the development of several interconnected beliefs:
- That a woman is a man’s property.
- That a woman’s place is in the home.
- That women ought to be “naturally” monogamous.
The sources argue that these beliefs, originating with the rise of plough agriculture, have had a lasting impact, influencing societal policies, laws, and institutions even in modern, post-agrarian societies. Remarkably, a study found that even the descendants of people from plough-based cultures hold more gender-biased attitudes and exhibit lower levels of female participation in politics and the labor force, regardless of current economic structures or geographical location. This “plough legacy” is described as “sticky” because acting on pre-existing gender beliefs is often more efficient than evaluating each situation based on individual merit.
Historical Construction of Female Passivity: The sources also discuss the historical construction of female sexual passivity in contrast to male sexual eagerness. Influential figures like Darwin, Acton, and Krafft-Ebing contributed to the notion that females are inherently less eager, requiring to be courted, while men are naturally more ardent. Krafft-Ebing even suggested that if women’s sexual desire were not small, the world would become a brothel. These ideas reinforced rigid gender scripts that placed women in the domestic sphere and men in the world of action.
Challenges to Traditional Gender Roles: Despite these deeply ingrained roles, the sources highlight instances where they have been challenged or differed:
- Early Human Societies: Early Homo life is suggested to have involved more social cooperation and a less rigid gender division, particularly in hunter-gatherer societies where women were primary producers, leading to greater female agency.
- Wyandot Culture: The pre-contact Wyandot society is presented as an example where women had significant sexual autonomy, agency in choosing partners, and equal say in social and political matters, challenging the notion of inherent female passivity.
- World Wars: During World War II, with men away at war, women took on traditionally male roles in the workforce, demonstrating female competence and challenging the idea that their place was solely in the home. However, after the wars, there was a societal push to return women to domestic roles.
Persistence of Gender Bias and Double Standards: Despite progress, the sources indicate the persistence of gender bias and double standards. The fact that the author found it easier to discuss her work as being about “female autonomy” rather than “female infidelity” reveals societal discomfort and judgment surrounding women’s sexual behavior outside of monogamy. Furthermore, the common responses to her research, such as “What does your husband think about your work?”, highlight the ingrained assumption that a woman’s activities should be viewed through the lens of her relationship with a man.
The double standard regarding infidelity is also mentioned, where men’s “ho phase” is often normalized as “his life,” while women who exhibit similar behavior are judged more harshly. The story of Cacilda Jethá’s research in Mozambique illustrates how even in a context where extra-pair involvements were common, women were far more reluctant to discuss them than men, indicating a persistent asymmetry in how sexual behavior is perceived and reported based on gender.
Impact on Female Sexual Autonomy: The sources argue that these historically constructed gender roles significantly impact female sexual autonomy. The surrender of “complete, dizzying sexual autonomy and self-determination” is presented as a trade-off for the security of a dyadic relationship, often presumed to be a natural and easier path for women. The negative reactions to women who refuse sexual exclusivity, whether openly or secretly, and the labeling of such women as “damaged,” “selfish,” “whorish,” and “bad mothers,” even by self-described feminists, demonstrate the constraints placed on female sexual self-determination.
The very language we use, such as a woman “getting ploughed” by a man, reflects the agrarian heritage and the idea of women as property, further limiting the conceptualization of female sexual agency.
In conclusion, the sources argue that current gender roles, particularly those concerning women, are not natural but are deeply rooted in historical and economic shifts, most notably the advent of plough agriculture. These roles have led to persistent biases, double standards, and limitations on female autonomy, especially in the realm of sexuality. While there have been challenges and variations across cultures and time periods, the legacy of these historically constructed gender roles continues to shape our beliefs and societal structures today.
By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog
Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!
