DEFEND YOUR MONOGAMOUS LIFE
I was enjoying Stuart Greene’s column, “Ménage à… Nah,” in your July issue [Sex & The Married Man]. I agree that sexual adventurism is definitely not for everyone. But I was amazed by this blanket statement he imposed at the end: “[Sex experts] who aren’t afraid to delve deeper into moral and psychological issues seem to agree that humans are essentially monogamous by nature.” This is highly untrue, at least if you examine the historical norms. In a recent study of 1,154 past and present societies, anthropologists documented that 980—a huge majority—have allowed some form of multiple relationship. Even today, a number of traditional indigenous societies allow either polygamy or polyandry. This isn’t to suggest that these societies didn’t also have monogamous relationships, or that those who only have one partner in their life are somehow deficient. There are many relationship styles: straight or gay, single-partner or multiple-partner, and Greene deserves credit for determining that he’s happy in a monogamous relationship. But we need to be very careful about assertions regarding which types of relationships are our “essential nature,” and extremely cautious about branding other types as “dysfunctional” or “hurtful,” as he goes on to do. This wasn’t a psychological judgment, it was a moral judgment. Greene seemed to need to defend his own lifestyle.
Steve Anderson
Minneapolis
TOO MUCH LOVE FOR ONE LOVER
Regarding Stuart Greene’s interesting ménage article, I have to say that I think Stuart should learn more about the subject. He says “humans are essentially monogamous by nature, and that this type of sex-play is usually evidence of some kind of dysfunction, often something very serious and hurtful.” Being polyamorous myself, I can say with certainty that he is mistaken. It may be true that some monogamous couples who occasionally participate in a ménage may have deeper issues, maybe not. There are large numbers of people who participate in open, honest multiple-partner relationships. Like all communities, the moral and psychological nature of these people ranges across the spectrum. By and large, though, most of us are emotionally mature enough to have gone beyond jealousy and possessiveness to allow ourselves to be open to long-term loving relationships with more than one person. Any casual observer of human nature and history knows that most men are not monogamous by nature. In some cultures men have affairs or mistresses, and it is not considered the least bit unusual or improper. In our prudish culture, this is less accepted but often ignored or overlooked. With the large divorce rate and the high incidence of infidelity, it should be obvious that monogamy is an artificial institution that correlates higher with dogmatically religious people. Participants in polyamory feel that the emphasis on sexual monogamy is unimportant, that fidelity with one’s partner(s) is being honest and truthful, and it is the mark of a mature relationship. Perhaps Stuart is unfamiliar with the broad community of adults who participate in swinging, open relationships, polyamory, and/or BDSM and is just jealous that his old flame has a more open sexual lifestyle than himself. Stuart’s final thought, “Great sex does not make a great relationship,” says it all. Why can’t one have great sex and great relationships?
Atom Aton
Minneapolis
THE LOOCH IS ON THE LOOSE
At last, Mary Lucia’s voice back into the consciousness of Minneapolis [Soundtrack to Mary, The Broken Clock]! I mourned the loss of REV, and then ZONE, not only for the music but for the honest, passionate, wickedly funny, loosely censored Mary Lucia. I anxiously and hopefully wait for the day that Mary is back on air. Until then, I will keep looking for written word from Mary.
Shellae Mueller
Bloomington
HEY GOOD-LOOKING, WHAT YOU GOT COOKING?
I thoroughly enjoy your magazine, finding it interesting, well-written, and good-looking. But a serious matter forces me to point out what I see as an error in the article “Getting Baked” [The Rakish Angle, August]. There is no clear evidence that “tanning booths are less likely than sun exposure to cause melanoma.” From everything I have read, the jury is still out on the various causes of melanoma, a horrible beast of a disease. One thing is clear: You won’t find many oncologists hanging out in tanning booths. The last thing consumers need is cancer information generated by the tanning industry.
Maureen Mitton
Hudson, Wisconsin
NO MAN IS AN ISLAND
Robin Shaw’s article “Unhappy Trails” [August] missed the point. It’s not what is the best use of the land, but who gets to decide how the land is developed, if at all. If the court rules that Brian Sandberg owns the land, do we label them “activist” judges? What I did learn from that article is that, in the end, Sandberg is SOL. Even if the state Supreme Court rules in favor of Sandberg, apparently the Legislature can still appropriate the land for the public good. So, it would seem Sandberg will eventually have to decide whether to defend his rights with his gun against the Legislature’s pen. I love the bike trails and use them frequently. Do all the real benefits of having the trails outlined in the article negate the rule of law? In a sense, Sandberg is in the same boat as Native Americans whose land was taken from them because they did not use it to its fullest extent.
Darryl Wheaton
Lakeville
Editor’s Note: We’re pretty sure the “rule of law” favors the state Legislature. It’s often referred to as “eminent domain.” Property-rights advocates who defend their views with guns tend to lose in these types of disagreements.
SPEAKING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS…
I was so surprised to read Louise Erdrich’s letter in the August edition of The Rake [Letters]. If memory serves, the lot where Charlie Lazor is building his house was for sale for a long time—years, even. I rollerblade that trail almost daily (I agree with her that the Kenilworth Trail is superb, one of the green gems of the city), and have marveled at the new house gracing the lot no one else would buy. If she wanted to preserve the green space, why didn’t she buy the lot herself, or rally her neighbors to buy it collectively? Since she didn’t, she can’t exactly complain about what someone else does with it. And, the house is not a concrete wall, as she so inaccurately described it. Gorgeous wood and glass are the primary materials of Mr. Lazor’s house. To my eyes, it’s much more sculpturally and sensitively designed than many of the bland older houses on lots nearby. And those older houses sit on what was once green space, too—just because they’re old doesn’t make them any less of an assault on bygone green space, or make them automatically beautiful. Mr. Lazor’s house inspires and thrills me each time I pass it. (And I love the humane beauty of its affordability.) Clearly, we are drawn to different expressions of beauty. Beauty is subjective, after all. (I do love Ms. Erdrich’s books and her bookstore, though.) I was shocked and surprised to read this from Ms. Erdrich—especially from Ms. Erdrich.
Solveg Peterson
Minneapolis
Leave a Reply