Subscription Center
Aug 7, 2009 10:35 AM | 17
.jpg)
TORONTO—Gay or straight, male or female—everyone is having fewer affairs now than they were in the 1970s. According to a new study presented here today at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, extramarital (and extra-partnership) sex is way down, and discussion about the topic within couples is way up.
Psychologists at Alliant International University in San Francisco and their colleagues compared survey responses from two large groups of couples, self-categorized as gay men, heterosexual men, lesbians or heterosexual women. About 12,000 people answered the relevant questions in 1975; close to 1,000 participated in 2000. The average length of the relationship at the time of the survey varied between groups, from about four and a half years for lesbians, almost seven years for gay men and about 14 years for heterosexual couples in 1974 to nearly 11 years for lesbians, 13.5 years for gay men and almost 20 years together for straight couples in the 2000 survey.
The overall result was unambiguous—monogamy rates have skyrocketed. But the groups still show dramatic differences in how often they cheat or have sex outside of their primary relationship. Around 82 percent of gay men reported extra-partnership sex in 1975, whereas 59 percent did in 2000—a significant decrease, but still that later rate is more than four times higher than comparable rates found among straight men (14.7), straight women (13.5) and lesbians (8.2). Those groups’ rates are down from percentages in the mid-twenties in 1975.
It's worth pointing out, however, that 43.7 percent of those gay men said they "discussed sex outside the relationship and decided that under some circumstances it is all right." Only 5 percent of lesbians and about 3.5 percent of straight couples had a similar agreement. Again, all groups report many fewer of these open relationships than they did in 1975, when about 20 percent of straight couples, 34 percent of lesbians and nearly 68 percent of gay men agreed to forgo monogamy.
And the percentage of couples who are decidedly closed to sex outside the relationship—they discussed extra-partnership sex and decided that "under no circumstances is it alright"—just about doubled in every group (from around 43 percent in 1975 to around 80 percent in 2000) except in gay men, among whom it more than tripled (13 to 44 percent). "It was surprising to us that in all groups, the trend is toward monogamy," said Gabrielle Gotta, lead author of the study.
So what’s the bottom line? There is certainly a large movement toward monogamy—most likely due to awareness about HIV and other STDs, speculate the authors—but every couple is different. More couples are discussing their options now than they were in 1975, and figuring out what works for them.
Image ©iStockphoto.com
Tags:
infidelity,
romance,
homosexuality,
love,
cheating,
monogamy,
relationships,
heterosexuality,
sex,
sexuality,
gay men,
lesbians
More News Blog:
Next: Toyota Highlander gets 68 miles per... kilogram of hydrogen
Previous: CT scans of fossils enable 3-D models of ancient spiders
See what we're tweeting about
mdichristina Great way to start the day: Chatted with @RosieMestel! Thanks, Rosie!
David_Bressan May 20, 2002: Died this day -
Stephen Jay Gould , naturalist in the very sens of the word http://t.co/nHe5AJEdhA
sciencegoddess RT @AstronomyNow: It's official! British astronaut Tim Peake to fly to Space Station in 2015 #astrotim #majortim http://t.co/nv6E5pKoS7
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
17 Comments
Add CommentDoes this development surprise anyone? Times are hard, people have to cut back on things that aren't an absolute necessity. Having someone on the side is expensive!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's too bad Bush can't claim it's because of his biblical approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChabelino,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBush is so yesterday. We are socialists now, and have no need for religion.
Maybe we are getting better at finding a good partner. Fewer surprises. I also believe that more couples are living together prior to commiting to long term relationships. Sexual incompatability would have to be a major cause of infidelity. When my wife's 40-something friends ask her how to get their husbands to not want so much sex, she replies "let them have sex with other women".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone say AIDS ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice. It's Bush's fault? I think the reason is that the 70's followed the "free love" hippy loser generation that also avoided scientific studies, became radical econuts and moonbats, and never saved up causing this financial implosion and health debate. The generation of kids growing up under Reagan are obviously much more traditional and less slacker and morally bankrupt like most liberal Democrats are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuess what jdubya, we 60's folk also created the technology and the Internet that you use to dis us. Go back to church and leave us alone. We also created the medical breakthroughs that keep your sorry ass alive. Reagan was the Sarah Palin of the 80's. Simply a figurehead and cheerleader for the greedy minds that really controlled things and left us in almost as bad shape as we are in now, thanks to Bush and his 82 IQ. Republican greed is the cause of our present financial mess and there is no rational argument in contradiction. Republican greed is also the cause of the health care crisis. Ecoheads saved your ass from air pollution and acid rain, caused by republican greed. You are slic...I am notslic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy first partner and I were together for 21 years, I guess this is called discipline & I am 49 yrs old now, and have met my second mate&. I am ready to go another 20+ yrs. I have seen many guys die off due to aids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI move to the Palm Springs area, I have to say the men out in the PS area are like day old donuts sure I eat them because they were there, however not worth investing in I Was soooooo not having SEX in the CITY until I met my next LOVE : )
You've left out the emotional aspects of sex in 'monogamy verses mulitple partners' . I would think that constant self fullfillment (as in several partners) to meet what one percieves as "needs " , can be emotionally draining in the long run and eventually achieve the oposite of what one usually thinks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us also not forget that despite the emotional damage , there is more physical /medical damage done to out bodies than just the sexual diseases . (Look up oral sex verses throat cancer , look up multiple partners and cervical cancer ....there are actual chemical changes that take place in your bodies with each sexual partner that you have !!)
I would have been nice to have given these psychologists credit by naming them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didnt realize having an affair was a way that people spend their discretionary income. Why not get a divorce and marry your fellow cheater?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas occurred to anyone that God had it right from day one? Monogamy is supposed to be the norm not the exception.
Yes, laurel59....you may be on to something !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiblically speaking , in the old testament , ( correct me if I'm wrong) re-marriage was concidered wrong , but if you must , it was suggested that you marry your husband's brother. ( If he was un attached, of course).Which doesn't necessarily make much sense until you know that when 2 people come together , their bodies actually experience a chemical change .And your husband's brother would most likely have the same chemical make-up as your husband, thereby lessening the chances of your contracting other health problems.( I'm thinking cancers ).
So....they seemed to know what they were talking about thousands of years ago . And science and religion actually do often times compliment each other.
And it's too bad that most religious leaders don't bother to use the sciences to prove the reasoning behind the 'books' and instead say 'ummm , Just because HE said so !!'
Actually the bible talks extensively about polygamy and consorts so it does not promote monogamy at all. Even the new testament says men should cleave to their wives. It doesn't say they should have only one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonogamy is a superior lifestyle in a technical society. Less risk of disease, STD or otherwise. Fewer intense emotional connections that can prove very draining of mental resources. More unified spending policies.
There is also the whole social promotion of honesty. Our society actively reviles liars and crooks. Violating the bounds of a relationship and a social contract is blatantly dishonest. It requires lies or worse.
Very few people truly want to be the "bad person". This makes monogamy more likely.
I do note however, that the first study had 12 times as many participants as the later study. This makes me question the validity of the comparison.
Here's my theory: for the vast majority of cultures, especially larger urban cultures, over the past 5,000 years or so, some form of stable family system was necessary for social stability. I'm talking about the kind of stability that allowed for everything from careful and good childcare to local community and nation-state stability. For stability, family systems require monogamy of some kind. Sexual promiscuity destroys community on every level, from the family unity to the state. And this is why over time humanity developed its rules (memes?) regarding romantic involvement and behavior--monogamy has very important survival value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur experiment with radical promiscuity is, I hope, coming to an end now that we see what a disaster it is. The number of children born out of wedlock and raised by single parents or a parade of different family constellations is wrecking havoc in the lives of children (anyone who works with kids knows this, but the social science evidence is glaringly obvious too), and the emotional and economic toll this experiment has had on women especially, but all of us in general, is horrendous. Perhaps our infantile pop culture will eventually grow up too and stop promoting a behavior set that is so remarkably destructive. This isn't about being a "prude," it's about facing the reality and consequences of these behaviors head on and recognizing our hyper-individualism and hedonism is very destructive.
MONOGAMY=MONOTONY??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I reading something incorrectly here? They are using data from 1974 and 2000? And calling the 2000 data current and presenting it as news? Because, really, as we all know, NOTHING has changed in the past 9.5 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said, notslic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so well said, Ledman:
"Here's my theory: for the vast majority of cultures, especially larger urban cultures, over the past 5,000 years or so, some form of stable family system was necessary for social stability. I'm talking about the kind of stability that allowed for everything from careful and good childcare to local community and nation-state stability. For stability, family systems require monogamy of some kind. Sexual promiscuity destroys community on every level, from the family unity to the state. And this is why over time humanity developed its rules (memes?) regarding romantic involvement and behavior--monogamy has very important survival value."
This social stability has nothing whatever to do with sexual fidelity (on the man's part) but everything to do with property. Bugger the genes, it's the goods that must be propagated and passed on. Wifely fidelity was only necessary to ensure that the passing on was from father to son.
The men with property could have as much sex as they liked with anyone they liked. But depending on the power of their wives' relatives they couldn't dump them at will, and powerful women were capable of and allowed to dump (divorce) unsatisfactory men. Powerful women (such as some Roman matrons) were fully capable of fucking around at will - as long as they kept it discrete.
Any study of any rich or powerful society over the past 5000 years or so will show that this is the case (take Egypt, India, China, the Persians, the Greeks (city state and Hellenic), the Middle East from Ur to Babylon (and Jerusalem too if you think it matters), the Franks and Vikings and so on ad infinitum. All the same. The lords of the Old Regime in France (pre-1789) had the right to screw any of their subject women on the night of the woman's marriage ("jus primae noctis" - the right of the first night) - check out the plot of The Marriage of Figaro to see the reality of monogamous fidelity under this regime.
Monogamy in reality often boils down to Serial Monogamy at "best". All the rest is negotiation. The figures show that women are at it as much as men (give or take a percentage point or two) - the thing is that they are so much more discreet about it (and for good reason, given "our" vicious and hypocritical social norms).
I've tried both and there's no solution. A long-lasting emotional commitment will make monogamy tolerable and maybe even voluntary. Otherwise it's all power games - ownership, clinging, dependence, economic ties (house ownership, shared debt, inheritance etc).