Andrew Sullivan shares his "wisdom" on marriage, yet again (sigh)

Here's the link

AND HERE'S THE QUOTE
It was a little trippy last night at the 92d Street Y. Sitting with an old friend, Dan Savage, and a seventies icon, Erica Jong, talking about sex in front of a few hundred Upper East Side denizens is not something you do every day. I said the f-word first, I'm happy to say, and after that, it was all downhill. For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.

Well, there are a few of things that ought to be said. First, he is correct that his is not a "revolutionary" position. Indeed, it is conventional in our culture. So conventional is it that it could pass on the "Upper East Side" as quite hip, not to be explored or questioned.

This leads to the second thing that must be said. Perhaps it is difficult for men to be monogamous. But, one could well ask, why. I think it boils down to one pitiful issue. Western men are incredibly insecure. Living in a world that neither demands greatness from men nor rewards real heroism, men become lost in a pathetic fantasy of sexual exploits to make them feel that they are truly masculine.

The other thing that plays into male "wandering" (even if it is seldom or one-time) is the profound loss of intimacy that our sex-obsessed culture has bequeathed us. When sex was unfettered -- medically first and the legally in Roe v. Wade -- from the inherent possibility of children and responsibility for the mother of one's progeny, the necessary prerequisite for seriousness (not somberness) about sexuality and its pleasures was lost. With the loss of seriousness (that is evidenced in some men) came a loss of respect for women and with that loss the foundation for real intimacy was lost. And women did not help their cause by seeking to immulate the worst features of maleness.

I recall G. K. Chesterton's quip about his lack of temptation to other women. Paraphased he said, I was never tempted by the thought of having other women, because the reality of really having one was more than I ever dreamed of.

One can't help but wonder what a secure man seeking greatness and truly valuing and respecting the woman who respected him in return and who engaged life together seriously might do to Sullivan's paradigm. Maybe in his world, however, seriousness and intimacy are quaint and disposable commodities.