What of equality in the adultery stakes?

Press, 14 December 1982, Page 20

What of equality in the adultery stakes?

Barbara Stewart takes issue with Dr Glenn Wilson’s argument for double standards of fidelity. She makes the case for shared commitment and responsibility in

marriage.

A ripple recently ran through my woman's blood, into my feminine arteries and right through, to my wifely capillaries. I read that a Christchurcheducated. London-based psychologist, Dr Glenn Wilson, suggests that the genetic make-up of men makes them want more than one mate. He advises that a married woman must accept this, and make herself more interesting to her mate, or accept his “flings” as “lusty little irrelevancies." Actually, there is nothing new in Dr Wilson’s pronouncement. Husbands have used this theory to explain their behaviour since our culture and monogamy went together. But I cannot accept that there should be one code of behaviour for husbands, and quite another set of rules for wives. Could his advice be reasonably suggested and accepted in the reverse? Dr Wilson says “the job of moral control is more difficult for a man”. What self-indulgence to suggest a wife should alone carry the moral burden of maintaining what these days seems to be very precarious family life. Behind Dr Wilson’s onesideed advice lies hundreds of years of built-in sexual history, social constraint, religious rules, and masculine prerogative for one gender. Dr Wilson none too subtly promotes and condones adultery. For the other he can apparently only offer the counsel to compromise and understand. Definitely a curious imbalance to be promoting in this age. Where has Dr Wilson been for the last few decades? He appears unaware of the changes and developments that have occurred in

women’s and therefore wives’ lives. Without examining in depth the difficult and devisive subject of adultery, let’s consider some points raised by Dr Wilson, and some facts concerning wives. Men and society would consider it dangerous encouragement to apply what Dr Wilson advocates to wives as well as husbands. I wonder how many men accept their own medicine, “what’s good for the gander, is good for the goose?” For all the constructive changes made to improve a woman’s situation, we are still a society of double standards. But what a glorious deception for Dr Wilson to suggest "the old double-standard is inborn in all men.” He really should take a good look at the woman beside him. Either the male accepts the same reasoning in his woman ... or he must face her total rejection of his personal indulgence. Her motivations could be very similar to his. Studies made of societies or cultures where extramarital liaisons are tolerated show that women are as eager and ready for variety as men. But Dr Wilson wishes us to believe that men have greater rights than women to seek sexual satisfaction, wherever it may be. For a wife, the accepting of the “realistic expectation” of an unfaithful husband may be the only chance of the marriage surviving, he says. Reading Dr Wilson’s statements reminded me of reading about some of our repugnant Victorian forefathers. They completed the business

of mating with their wives and quickly placed them on a lonely pedestal. Then they happily hurried off for the titillations and diversifications of much improved sex with their whores — of whom particularly the virgin child of 10 or 11 held the highest price. These children realised the value of their pathetically abused innocence and fooled their lascivious customers for long periods of time with artful deceptions. Meanwhile, back at home a thoroughly dissatisfied and frustrated woman languished, surrounded by hordes of the end result of the most unfulfilling sexual encounters. In the main, it was not considered necessary for her to achieve her own deep sexual enjoyment with her husband. And certainly not with anyone else. It is very apparent that throughout the generations of this century and in our particular culture, many more women are progressing towards an improved enjoyment of their sexuality, an understanding of it, and a demand that it be better satisfied. Dr Wilson suggests “marriage has a better chance of survival if people have a realistic appreciation of men’s and women’s differences at the start.” And vive le and la difference.

But the sexual psychology difference isn’t innate — it comes from historical male property rights. Wives were men’s property. A man needed to know that the children born to him had in fact been sired by him.

And in time, out of this reasoning came the male point of view that the desires of men had to be different from the desires of women. In the main, women responded to this manipulation. A reduced concentration of their sexual needs was forced on them because so often the result of sex was childbirth. Until this century, with its improved medical services and contraception, having babies was for a woman a matter of life and death. Generation after generation of wometa linked breeding pain and responsibility into their only knowledge and appreciation of their sexuality. Dr Wilson says, “Males like a variety of partners. Women are more inclined towards falling in love and adopting a monogamous lifestyle.” Both men and women fall in love. And judging by divorce statistics, women are no longer opting for the security of a roof and bread and butter for themselves and the children as. a trade-off in unhappy marriages. The motivation towards monogamy springs from a rational desire for a successful marriage. A woman’s sexual inclinations may well be subordinated in the interests of a stable family unit. Also, neither men nor women easily share each other out in our society. ■ Dr Wilson’s theories seem to conveniently ignore the needs and desires of wives.

In the effort to save her marriage she must practise the art of the “blind eye,” while the husbands Dr Wilson speaks of are apparently to be concerned only with their own sexual fulfillments. He also implies the entire responsibility for providing the “novelty” elements in the marriage's sexual relations is also the wife’s duty. So far it’s all take and no give. From a woman’s point of view, marriage doesn’t work like that any more. Dr Wilson suggests that the “male can impregnate large numbers of females, and has a genetic impulse to do so." That is true. But a woman can receive even larger numbers of men, far more regularly, than any single man can respond to. So in considering the physical act of intercourse itself, the woman is in no way disadvantaged. It is her attitude that is expected to be different. As to the “impulse” Dr Wilson talks of — isn’t that what has been far more widely appreciated? Women can have that “impulse” in the same measure; the need, the want, the urge and the tantalisation. It is a presumption of Dr Wilson to suggest otherwise. The impulse for sex which is merely physical, involving no emotional commitment, has always been supplied by prostitution. Although male prostitution is on a slow but steady increase, the term in general applies to the act as practised by women. Men may not find their “impulses” restricted to their

marriages. The same applies to women. For so long, husbands have granted themselves the hidden use of adultery. Accepting adulterous wives has never been seen in the same light. Double standards. Different rules. Although it is generally supposed the act of adultery is with another woman, she could well be another man's wife. Women today are enjoying and exploring their sexuality. Sometimes it’s suggested that at times these inherent demands for personal satisfaction can reduce the male to possible impotency. He’s been used to being the hunter, bearing down, taking and leading in sexual encounters. In fact, in a relationship of love and good communication this two-way dimension to sex can only add to its shared intimacy. But if there are any doubts and insecurities, then this new approach by women can easily find the male of traditional thinking sorely disturbed. What must be clearly understood is that just as a male’s sexuality and ego are intertwined — so it is the same for a woman. Her femininity, her sex appeal, her pride, her self esteem, and lots of other intangibles, are also totally linked with her ego. She positively responds with satisfaction to being interpreted as a “woman.” The propaganda Dr Wilson suggested was completely biased. It’s to be hoped that his notions, along with other sexual double standards will be burnt on the fire of "fair reasoning" in all things. My argument is solely the case for another form of equal approach — not an advocacy adultery. Viewing the destruction of marriages about, one has to agree with Mr George Sweet, of the Christchurch Marriage Guidance Council. His reported reply to Dr Wilson was: “All the research done is quite clear. Fidelity is a key factor in successful marriages.” It is a reasonable assessment to say that these days we are living in a time of individual personal responsibility. In a partnership of two there must be a similar appreciation of the marriage commitments. It’s a time for men and women to contribute with depth, kindness, humour, and over-all love to their shared lives. It would seem much more constructive for Dr Wilson to encourage men and women to explore all the options of the truly loyal and loving marriage that is so needed in these times of social change.