« Hooray for Eric Hutchison | Main | Shade Stores Closing Soon »

August 05, 2010



Another case of people defining themselves based on biology--handing off responsibility to biology. Sure, men are a bit more "sexual" (to put it briefly), but that doesn't justify following through with their wildest desires. A relationship requires commitment, but this is too much responsibility for some people to handle so they point to the supposed biological implications of gender instead.


Great points, Alyson. You really brought out all the contradictions in this preposterous article. When I first read this CNN advice, my head was spinning. I couldn't even think of asking why we can't have a higher standard for both sexes--even though this is one of my favorite topics, as you know. All I could feel was a tremendous desire to set up this woman with the man who endorsed infidelity on CNN the previous week. I believe his name was Christopher Ryan, and he considers himself "one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas" (hence cheating is only natural). Obviously I don't know Mr. Ryan, so I can't speak about whether or not he spurns spooning during his moments of infidelity, but it seemed to me like a match made in heaven.

Lisa Nash

This reminds me of an article I read by "Married Jake" at Glamour.com (I have just wasted ten minutes trying to find the article to link to it, but I haven't found it yet). Basically, this guy was a newlywed, and he talked about how he and his wife would date other people, without sex, to keep things interesting. I was thinking, you just got married and you are already using infidelity to "spice things up"? (Not to mention that this model of marriage, as well as Hill's, requires an entire class of people willing to be used in order to make married people's lives more interesting.)

All I can say about the idea of letting someone cheat so that they don't leave is that it is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. The only difference between "allowing" someone to cheat and having them cheat because you don't allow them to is your own say-so. And I spend all day taking care of kids -- I would rather not treat my husband like he is one, too.

As someone who actually loves her husband, I can say that if he slept with someone else -- with my permission or without it -- it would really hurt. That's a risk I take because I am married, and the vows we took at our wedding actually mean something.

Lisa Nash

Mary, I see what you are saying, but I am not even sure that men are more "sexual" -- what does everyone think about this concept?

Sarah M

oh geez. You hit the nail on the head. Excellent post. I'll be sharing this!
Sarah M

Alyson Turley

Ah Lisa! Cheers for bringing up a point I meant to but got too frustrated to remember-- how poorly this relationship model treats everyone outside of it. All the women (and men) the married couples are having flings with are basically being used and disposed without any regard for their feelings.

I mean, that's basically a reiteration of the hookup culture anyway, but it feels like an even more cynical version of it.


While we're at it isn't it only natural to eat as much as we are able and isn't it only natural to crave foods that aren't good for us? Bring on the buffets and sweets! Oh wait, even with the medical technology of the moment to stubbornly persist in this would mostly make us obese, ill, diabetic (and therefore potentially blind, deaf, and losing our limbs), depressed, and end in an early grave. Yay, sounds like fun. OR we could do something uniquely human and put aside these "natural" but disastrous desires to do what true logic (not just our self-pleasing rationalizing) tells us is correct.
First of all there isn't just misandry here, but definite lack of care for females. In our culture today one thing we really really need is for females to provide sisterly love and support for each other instead of tearing each other down. One of the most popular ways of women destroying other women is betrayal for the sake of men, and here this woman is advocating "let your man sleep with other women, as long as he's just using them for sex."

Jeanne B

I think this woman who used to be a mistress of a married man has created this odd morality in order to deal with her guilt over sleeping with another woman's husband, and her grief over his "dumping" her.


Negotiated infidelity is appropriate for those who do not associate an emotional attachment to sex. Some people just don't have that connection with sex, some people aren't religious, thus the morality aspect isn't there as much. It's more of a "don't hurt your partner" then a "don't forsake your vows made before god". Which, if cheating is negotiated, it should be a mutual agreement that brings no emotional pain to their partner. This doesn't mean that all couples should do or even try this. Not everyone is capable of of handling non-monogamy. Many people who think they are non-monogamous are merely selfish, ( they want to sleep around but don't want their partner too). This is not a decision to be made lightly, but for some couples it works.

-_- Every time relationship mainstream relationship advice comes along, people make these sweeping generalizations that only work for, half of the population at best. Holly Hill is caricature of bad stereotypes making a buck off of what works for her. However, the majority of men and women are not that.

I read Savage Love. It's very crude and brash, and would be offensive to almost everyone on here. He recently had an article or two talking about "Sex at Dawn" Which, using various anthropological and scientific sources, came to the conclusion that humans (not just men) are wired to be polyamorous. I'm not saying I agree, or completely agree with that statement. (I myself am monogamous, or to be fair at this point, a serial monogamist) But I think it's possible for people to be in open relationships, and still "faithful" if you will, to their partner.

Different people need different things. Just because it doesn't work for me doesn't mean it won't work for someone else.


Great rebuttal; it's beyond me how Ms. Hill can honestly view her personal conjugal structure as a prototype for happiness. If she (or any two people) really think they want this kind of relationship (?) then by all means, go to it. I don't think it's either smart or healthy, but that's their business. Putting this out as a kind of panacea for potential relational woes, however, is ridiculous; it really is like saying, "There is a risk of smallpox in this area, so the best thing to do would be to infect the population with the disease. Then we'll know for sure that everyone has smallpox, and the risk of infection will be gone!" Most people, I am fairly sure, want more out of their romantic and emotional lives than a partner who is little more than a stray animal who comes back because it keeps getting 'fed'-- and will accordingly deal with their problems with more emotional maturity than is offered by Ms. Hill's "solution".


I'm not even sure if men are, myself.
But people certainly believe it these days, particularly people who think everything is derived from some primeval ape stage.

Melissa May

I saw her on CNN the other night, in a discussion with a few other women. Just like most of the other commentators, I was dumbstruck.
Alyson, your post hit the nail on the head. I'm sharing this one, for sure!

Cady Driver

Awesome post....My husband and I were both laughing and shaking our heads when reading it....I liked how you wrote "why don't we give them reason to WANT to stick around". That is what I was trying to get at in my last post on respecting and highly esteeming our spouses.

It really is a strange world we live in now.

connie loren walker

Well Wendy, this is why sometimes I give up hope! There are too many voices in the mainstream media that talk like this!! And the worst part is that someone on CNN, thought this would be a good idea. Men aren't dogs. Men are inteligent, wonderful, and loving human beings who deserve a chance to be held to a higher regard. At the end of the day I blame women who sell men short. There is so much in soceity that we would have to un-do to get to the place where men and women "belong". Respecting and admiring each other! Unless you as a woman (especially african american) are part of a visually religous following, you are held to the expectations of what the majority women would do, say, act, and feel. There is no near enough respect, honor, and loyalty in society to motivate me to think otherwise. Even if you find Mr.Right, Miss idoit like the one in the article is the main one creating the loophole for him to cheat in the first place... Cant she see that?

Richard Ericson

Holly has only experienced "like" and not "love". Have we forgotten about children, who need parents who LOVE each other, and fathers who are men and not still boys?


This is not well thought out or articulate as the other comments but here it goes.

WTHFOSUSNALKWEURH!%$&@U?????? I mean really??,Really?


The first thing that came to my mind was diseases. And what if one of the cheating partners became pregnant or impregnated someone. Would that baby become a victim of abortion? The thing about being irresponsible about sex is that it's never just about one's "personal preferences".
The purpose, in nature, of sex, is babies and bonding. When separated from its intended purpose for the sake of selfishness there are often unintended consequences. Of course this could work out particularly crappy for the women. If there is an unintended pregnancy and an abortion takes place it will be the woman that undergoes the procedure with all its potential physical and emotional consequences. Even if the man is "responsible" and regularly being tested for diseases and using condoms every time, he could still contract HPV and pass it along to the women he sleeps with and put them at risk for warts or cervical cancer, since there is no male HPV test.


At first I thought this article made men look bad, but I think it makes women look far worse. I would much rather be compared to an animal than be seen as the mammal of higher intelligence that also lacks a backbone, a sense of self-respect, and an awareness of when someone is RIPPING YOU OFF. At least an animal can claim ignorance.

And men aren't dogs. Saying that all men act like strays spits in the face of every man that has ever loved a woman. I'm thinking specifically of my grandfather, who was some 10 years older than my grandmother, but loved her even when she could no longer love him because of illness. I'm a lady, but the gloves would come off if anybody ever called my grandad a dog. He was not.


Great post; this ridiculous idea has been increasingly spreading amongst mainstream media and the sad thing is, most people eat it up as if it's some new scientific discovery to be bought as fact! It seems to me that the person who wrote this could have dated too many male chauvinist pigs to have believed this was the case for the whole of mankind, and has lost all sense of self-worth as a human who deserves respect, commitment and mutual understanding! Anyway, this article and this whole idea honestly makes no sense and is contradictive to the point of WTH???


"Negotiated infidelity is appropriate for those who do not associate an emotional attachment to sex." --Shanna

I'm struggling with how to express my opinion on this comment without transgressing the bounds of propriety required by this blog.

Let me start by citing Alasdair MacIntyre, the political philosopher, once the darling of the British Communist Party, who returned to the Catholic Church of his childhood in the 1980s. Somewhere in his book "After Virtue" (I can't run after the citation now) he cites Benjamin Franklin's dictum, "never use venery except for health . . ." and a few other, utilitarian objects. And in counter to Franklin he cites D. H. Lawrence: "Never use venery, period."

"Using venery" means using another person. And this goes to the heart of what being a person means. Not the person used--the person using. Even two people using each other. Yeah, I like that phrase, the person using.

Hey, we're in modern times, or maybe postmodern, so what's wrong with using another person on the basis of mutual informed consent? Isn't every consensual transaction legitimate? Is there any difference between going to the corner shop and paying the woman there for a pint of milk, and paying her for the rent of her body?

I think there is. Because "sex" is, should be, a window into the soul of another person. And to consent to casual promiscuity is to abstract the body from the soul that inhabits it, which I think is the most demeaning thing there is. And what demeans the person used demeans the person using, makes him/her a user of others.

I think that that's what modesty is about. It sets the following limit: "Within these clothes is a body inhabited by a soul. One can't have one without having the other. I don't give one without giving the other. And a soul can only be given to one other special soul." A unisex sentiment, by the way. Certain things shouldn't be bought and sold even though they can be.

Ms. Shalit in her book describes the farce of men who have hooked up going through the motions of checking up on the people they've used, a simulacrum of the care one is supposed to feel for a soul rather than a body--a compliment paid by vice to virtue. I'm sorry, Shanna, but I think people who do not associate an emotional attachment to sex fall from the dignity of human beings.

Nurit Weizman

YK, I believe you articulated the issue beautifully.
"Live and let live" is a phrase we hear often now, especially about those who wish to enjoy casual sex freely. But oftentimes, those who we are supposed to "let live" are the ones who are actually robbing people of life. Those who can separate emotion from sex have no way of knowing if there partner can do so (very, very doubtful), even if there is tons of audible, discussed "consent". This is because our campaign for consent is only concerned with the day of. In other words, if that partner ends up calling the next day to say, "Actually, I couldn't separate the two, perhaps we can go out sometime?", the sexually emotionless person has the right by contract to say "absolutely not" even though they have now completely violated their partner. This should be known as the "consentual rape" of a human being. A person gets tricked by society, partners, parents, friends to think that sex can be loveless. They engage in a casual one-night-stand with no worries, feel profoundly violated afterwards, and have no right by society to be upset with their "consent-seeking and honest partner" who must be left alone to live.


YK-I realize that said views on a modesty blog are going to be unpopular, but not everyone is modest nor trying to lead a modest life. Alyson in her post wondered if negotiated infidelity is ever appropriate. And hence my comment. It can be appropriate those who do not feel an emotional attachment to sex, and by definition, those who do not follow a religion which requires monogamy. I didn't say it was for everyone, I didn't say it would work for everyone, as hard as monogamy can be I imagine open relationships are even harder, what with jealousy issues and such.
That said, I have a few friends who don't always attach emotions to sex. I'm glad you think they don't have the dignity deserving of a human being. Thanks for reminding me of a large reason for why I neglected my faith for years.

Nurit- Thats a bit out there. I don't think one-night stands are right the most people, but going into one both persons should know it's no strings attached. It's a tricky situation. This is more a case of society needs to start teaching that everyone's sexuality is different, and the best way to avoid emotional distress is to know yourself well before engaging in any kind of sex. But the "consent seeking and honest partner" is hardly at fault, sex can be loveless for some people. I also much prefer said person, or someone who admits upfront that they are non-monogamous. I prefer them over the person who lies about being monogamous and then cheats behind their significant others back. The honest partner puts it upfront, the pain can be avoided if you know yourself well enough. The liar blindsides all, and leaves all hurt.

Nurit Weizman

The "no strings attached" conversation will almost always be agreed upon if one partner likes the other. No matter how well someone knows themselves, no matter how "good" the sex ed, no one I know has every backed down from a hook-up situation with someone they liked, no matter how much the were asked "you sure?". When it comes to the real deal, emotions trump sex ed and logical thinking about oneself. And for those who are "honest" about their sexuality often know they are about to, or at least have a high chance of, hurting somebody, because sexual desire often trumps empathy--especially if they have the no strings attached contract to back them up. This kind of hurt cannot be taken lightly at all--nor the hurt that comes even when one truly believed they were someone who could separate emotion from the physical. Pain from sexual experiences, from sex to just kissing, is extremely profound. This unique pain is exactly why rape and sexual harrassment are the highest of crimes. I do believe that this is all very complicated, hence the space here to discuss it. But this space was also needed because of the amount of hurt people felt over different variations of "contract" relationships they went into, even though they believed they were perfectly capable of handling them. That is, after all, why I am here.

Nurit Weizman

All I can say now is, please excuse my grammatical errors...oy vey


From a biological stand point, men cannot be more "sexual" than women. Sex (as derived from the words: sexual reproduction) involves a man and a woman (male and female). There's no getting around it.

Men may have more desire, be more amorous or libidinous, but by the very definition of the word, they cannot be more sexual.

Semantics, I know. Obviously, this is the scientific meaning of the word, not its common usage. However, since Ms. Hill is using science to support her opinions, I think it's appropriate.


Uh. Did you just compare rape to a regretted one night stand? Because let me tell you the pain over my father sodomizing me is nowhere close to what I felt after a couple of makeouts with a guy I liked that didn't work out.

I'm sorry, you have no idea what you're comparing here. And you have no idea how insulting that is.

I know hook ups can hurt people, but you know, if someone's done it once and got hurt. That sucks. If they've done it twice and got hurt, maybe they should've learned from it. You've got a pretty poor view on honesty.

Nurit Weizman

Shanna, my very deepest apologies for how I worded my response and for the insult it caused. Indeed I should have been more sensitive in my articulation. What I meant to say was that since rape is such a severe crime, it shows us that sexuality is very sensitive and profound. By no means did I wish to compare the two.


Thank you. I get what you're going for, but at the same time, it reads much much worse. I agree that sexuality is very sensitive, but I don't think it's productive to stigmatize people for whom its, less sensitive. Some people (myself included) can stand to benefit from being more respectful about peoples choices regarding it, especially if it's a case when it works for them. I'm not interested in defending people who have one night stands, or open relationships and get hurt, repeatedly by them. These are people who aren't able to have those sort of relationships, and would benefit from a more traditional model (though I do believe people are free to make mistakes, I just hope they learn from them) But I can't get behind calling people who know they are non-monogamous and trying to form relationships with other non-monogamous people as lesser, or that their relationships are not as good or strong as a traditional one. Maybe to religious doctrine, but not for another imperfect person to call out.

A Man

Well, I think the real issue is that, considering the divorce rate in the US, most people who are married probably shouldn't be. But isn't Hill just saying "Look, this works for us. Maybe it can work for you"? (I did not RTFA). How is that any different from saying "Modesty works for us, maybe it can work for you?".


Shanna and I disagree about something sensitive and controversial and I'm not surprised that her response has an edge. Fair enough. I will however insist on being read accurately, since I chose my words carefully. To say that a person, in making a moral choice, falls from the dignity of a human being is not the same as saying that he/she has surrendered that dignity conclusively or that others should treat them as if they had forfeited it.



I believe that you may have misinterpreted YK's statements. I don't think that YK was saying your friends are not deserving of human dignity (actually, it would be the author of the CNN article that more appropriately fits your charge). Rather, focus was being brought to the fact that those who hold views like the one in the article are choosing to live in ways that are decidedly beneath their dignity. To come to this conclusion one must have a view of human sexuality that is higher than that of dogs or cats, and that is exactly the opposite of what the author supports. To put it another way, people deserve to be treated better than what Ms. Hill is advocating. That message is far more courteous than the one that breaks us all down to the level of mutts and mongrels.

Clearly we must be cautious when making comments about other people's lives because we are all, as you mentioned, imperfect beings. But because Ms. Hill has presented her lifestyle choice as one worthy of imitation, its merits are being dissected, poked, and prodded with an eye towards pragmatism. Her de-humanizing of all the males of our species should be enough to give one pause, but if you want to follow her philosophy to its logical end, you are only left with a society that no longer distinguishes itself from the beasts. That one point alone casts an unfavorable light on the rest of her argument, for it is difficult to take someone seriously when they do not respect other people.

Also, the assertion that sex can be experienced in a soulless/emotionless way does not hold true when we consider those who have experienced rape and sexual abuse. In such instances the physical violation is never separated from the violation of the victim's total being, which is why people continue to suffer from the effects of sexual abuse long after the physical signs of it have subsided. Having suffered from sexual abuse myself, I found it necessary to grow into a person that did not separate her sexuality from the rest of her being. I would not force myself to live in a way that would be nothing more than an admission that what happened to me had only affected my body. I knew at the core of my being that it went so much deeper than that. Though someone could take away my virginity, I was not willing to concede my dignity as a human being, nor was I willing to separate my sexuality from the rest of my humanity. Regardless of what people choose to do with their bodies, or the harm that they inflict on others, a person's dignity is the one thing that cannot be taken away. It can only be relinquished, but even then vestiges of the truth will always rebel against outward manifestations (a boy who howls at the moon is still a boy).

So, if we agree that sex is more than a physical act in the case of rape and sexual abuse, why do we contradict ourselves by saying that within another context sex is just sex? Either we are suppressing the truth or we cannot plug the holes in our own flawed logic. All I ask is that people would at least be consistent.


Anonymous, I'm sorry you were abused. But consensual sex is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEN RAPE AND ASSAULT. Say someone practices martial arts, they do tournaments, sometimes they get hurt, sometimes they unintentionally hurt others. Say this person gets jumped in an alley by a couple of people with blunt objects. Is getting hurt at a tournament the same as getting jumped in an alley? Of course not. Because the person consented to entering the tournament, and was aware of the risks involved. But no one consents to getting jumped in the alley. There's all sorts of reasons why doing martial arts and signing up for tournaments can be bad, or detrimental to one's health and emotional well being. But they CHOSE it.

I am not a fan of Hill. She has the most obnoxious, blatant attention grabbing way of getting her "message" out there. There has been open relationship/non-monogamous advice and communities floating out in the world for years, most of whom at least act very rational and level headed, and thus unlike Holly Hill. For some people a more casual attitude towards sex works. For some people modesty works. Some of us are somewhere in between.

YK-We have fundamental disagreement, and thats okay. I did misinterpret your wording. I shouldn't have responded as harshly as I did, and for that I apologize.


Molodets, Anonymous!

My humble admiration for having so transcended the violence that, alas, was done to you.

And I would not have Shanna believe that I am indifferent to the pain she suffered. I don't know what value sympathy has at a distance, but such as it's worth, I offer it.



I agree. Consensual sex and rape are not the same thing. I am sorry if I ever implied that, as that was not my intention. My main objective was to bring focus to our common understanding that sex in the case of rape and sexual abuse affects more than just the body, but we often do not transfer this knowledge to other areas of our lives. I personally wrestle with these contradictions.

I am also sorry that you were abused. As a fellow journeyer on this walk of life, I wish you all the best.


I saw the crazy segment on CNN :) Even my husband thought it was crazy. Those ladies made men sound like animals who can't control themselves. Sad state of affairs for some women who consider themselves "liberated."


This is ridiculous. People love to use the "we're just animals" angle to justify anything and everything. People have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, which animals do not. There is no comparison.


If someone wants to have sex without emotional attachments to a single partner, then he or she should remain single, period. This negotiated infidelity business essentially opens the door for cheaters to provide money, gifts, and other trinkets of loyalty to someone other than their partner.

If cheaters feel free to show their loyalty to others, can their proper relationship REALLY survive? I doubt it; couples would be doing it all the time if this thing actually works as intended. Deep down, we humans want our partners to be as loyal and committed to us as possible (and vice versa), which is something that seperates us from most of the Animal Kingdom.


Warning... this is a long post. I had to reply after reading the article on CNN. I have written my responses to much of the article, and have quoted sections of it below for some of my responses. Sorry for the length, but I couldn't let this one go.

Whether it’s negotiated or not, infidelity is infidelity, and it’s never good for a relationship.

Where is the power in knowing about the cheating of a wayward spouse, and thereby becoming a willing participant in the betrayal of oneself? This is self betrayal is far more damaging to the self worth of the betrayed than being cheated by a wayward partner. At least the unknowing and betrayed have the dignity of caring enough about themselves to expect fidelity. Giving up on that expectation does not soothe the pain of being betrayed, but grossly compounds the damage.

The leash metaphor used by Miss Hill is a preposterous illusion. Having a bus come out of nowhere and hit you isn’t less painful or damaging when it isn’t a surprise. Knowing it’s coming and doing nothing to avoid it is akin to suicide. To knowingly become a party to your partner’s infidelity is akin to emotional suicide. It is to toss away all possibility of trust, personal dignity, boundaries and emotional safety. Where is the power in that?

Allowing a partner to have sex with but not be intimate with another is an absolutely ludicrous expectation. Here is the implication that sexual contact is separate from intimacy to the point of having nothing to do with each other. Granted, there are all kinds of levels of intimacy in the human sexual experience. However, total separation of the two is generally considered a symptom of psycho-sexual dysfunction, not a condition of healthy sexual relationships.

“They do not love that do not show their love” – William Shakespeare

Not only her opinion of herself is low, but Miss Hill’s opinion of men is extremely low as well. Cheating is a heinous form of betrayal that damages and scars the innocent in deep and lasting ways. One who engages in such abhorrent behavior toward another does not love them. They may feel bad and remorseful, but I am tired of hearing people say that cheaters “love” those whom they betray.

“Allowing their men to stray is a concept that's difficult for most women to contemplate.”

Duh! There are many age-old reasons for this. Honestly, this line alone ought to have women everywhere beating down this woman’s door, demanding an apology.

“If a woman takes the time to truly examine her relationship and considers Mother Nature's unerring spell on men's libidos, she might realize that letting her boyfriend or spouse know she's OK with him having sex elsewhere is a logical way to prevent him from doing it in secret.”

Does she advocate a man restrain himself at all? Is it not restraint that separates men from animals? Does she expect anything at all from men in the way of self control that would be more than what she’d expect from a dog?

Again, what’s the value in knowing about the betrayal? The woman who values herself expects fidelity from her man.

"I think that cheating men are normal. Monogamous men are heroes. Monogamy does have a place in relationships, but not on the long-term. Men are hard-wired to betray women on the long-term."

If we have collectively lowered our standards, then of course what was once average behavior would now appear to be heroic.

It seems that virtually all the relationships Miss Hill has had with men have been with cheating men. I guess I couldn’t expect her to realize how wrong her statement is. Even so, why does she not value herself enough to go find a hero? And how cynical does one have to be to expect all heroes to fall?

Men are certainly disposed to being attracted to women around them as part of their nature, since the drive to procreate is constant for healthy men well into old age. However, what elevates a man above the animals is his ability to moderate his behavior and master his appetites, not allowing them to enslave him.

Have we really come to the point where we’ve given up on the idea that men can control themselves? Have women really given up on the idea that they are worth the sacrifice of fidelity? Does Miss Hill need to believe that “men are pigs” to soothe the pains of her own self betrayals?

Thank heavens for the real psychology professionals. I’m glad that CNN at least saw the need to lend some credibility to the content on their website. Notice their comments on the connections between impersonal sex and narcissism, avoidant attachment style/disorder, and “lower levels of empathy”. Are these characteristics that should be cultivated in a relationship?

“Of course it's every woman's right to refuse to have sex when she's not in the mood or has a headache. However, expecting men to cope on their own with no outlet whatsoever is shortsighted and cruel.”

Cope? With what? Rejection? Is it really rejection to refuse sex when a woman has a headache? Are all of Miss Hill’s men whiny little babies who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way? Saying “Not at this moment” is not the same as saying “No”.

Again, miss Hill expects absolutely nothing of her men. She seems intensely afraid of being abandoned by her men. So much so that it has absolutely debilitated her ability to stand up for herself. One wonders what happened to her to traumatize her in this way. She would do well to realize that men who would really love her would give her what she expects of them. The solution for women is to expect more of their men, not less.

Apparently getting her psychology degree taught Miss Hill little about human psychology. She endorses extremely self destructive behaviors for both men and women. Is selling her body and writing a book about it all she’s done professionally?

“Any married woman who no longer loves her husband but continues to have sex with him to retain the comforts of being married could also be considered part of that oldest profession.”

Married women vow to be faithful for better or worse. It’s the vow and marriage that make them different from prostitutes and mistresses, not how much they love their husbands. Miss Hill’s resentment and disdain for marriage really shows here. Calling married women prostitutes (which is not a new assertion by prostitutes) cannot elevate Miss Hill above her seedy past and current self abasing lifestyle.

"If a woman crosses her legs for any length of time and doesn't arrange some sort of alternative for her man, he is going to cheat on her." By alternatives, Hill is referring to her idea of "negotiated infidelity." That shouldn't be confused with an open relationship, which to Hill "has no rules."

"Ideally the woman will want to stray as well," says Hill. "Some won't want to because they're at home taking care of toddlers. But the woman definitely needs to negotiate infidelity as well, especially because that will generate her man's competitive nature. The more lovers the woman has, the more attraction the man will have for his partner."

I thought spooning was enough for Miss Hill. Why would she need to stray if the man is the one who is hardwired to cheat? I also think she is confusing a man’s competitive nature to his feeling attracted to his partner. Competitiveness is an internal drive that has nothing to do with attraction and everything to do with an internal effort to elevate oneself. I think the use of the word “competitiveness” is a deception on her part anyhow. What she’s really talking about is jealousy. Jealousy is an insecure, destructive emotion that cannot enhance a relationship in any way. Miss Hill doesn’t understand men at all.

What Miss Hill doesn’t seem to understand is that intimacy is important to both sexes, though they do generally achieve the feeling of intimacy through different means. The ridiculous thing about her statement is that by her own words, Miss Hill ignores the male path to intimacy (sex) and forbids her sometime partner to engage in forms of intimacy that she says females value and men in general do not seek.

Logically therefore, the boundary is meaningless and accomplishes nothing, since by her own definition, men don’t need the "spooning" for intimacy.

Her sugarbabe days now over, Hill lets her boyfriend of two years, Phil Dean "go off" on occasion. Hill says she believes negotiating their infidelity has been instrumental in keeping their relationship strong and committed, not to mention electric.

So we’re going to call no commitment at all -“strong and committed”? Seriously, what comes to my mind here is the Mad TV skit about online dating called “Lowered Expectations”. Miss Hill’s path to happiness and her advice to all women are to achieve bliss through lowering expectations. If your expectations go low enough you will never be disappointed. But then there is the added dimension of self betrayal.

"[Dean] can have sex with the Australian women's basketball team for all I care, but he can't spoon any of them," says Hill. "For me, spooning is cheating."

Remember the metaphor of the dog on a leash? What if her man spoons during foreplay? How about hugs? I realize she doesn’t claim that men achieve intimacy through sex, but what Miss doesn’t seem to get is that men generally crave sex as a path to intimacy. Why else would the conquest be worth it? Miss Hill talks of the” thrill of the hunt” as a reason that drives men to seek sex, but if that were so, men would spend more time with foreplay… wouldn’t they?

Her other patterns of male sex include sex with strangers with no names, which again implies men are unfeeling, detached narcissists as a general rule.

I would grant that, men can be capable of all these ugly behaviors, but as a man, I’m affronted by the assertion that this is all women have to hope for from their men unless they end up with a hero (who by Miss Hill’s evaluation will also disappoint her).

But I digress; Miss Hill’s misunderstanding of male sexuality leads her into a logical dilemma. Why does she prohibit spooning and not sex? She is forbidding her man to do with other women what makes her feel intimate, not what does it for him.

The result will naturally be that her men will always develop attachments to the women they have sex with. The spooning is not as meaningful to him as it is to her. She, by spooning with other men, will naturally develop attachments with them eventually. And then more pain will come… not less, which is of course one of the most important reasons why cheating is wrong and bad for relationships.

Dean, 45, who works for an insurance company in Sydney, jokes that he hasn't slept with any members of the Australian basketball team. But he is a big supporter of negotiated infidelity
"I was actually very relieved when Holly and I started to speak about it [at the beginning of the relationship]," he says. "She asked me if I'd be happy in a monogamous long-term relationship and I had to say 'no'."

Here we finally get to the heart of the issue. He’s not interested enough to commit, or sacrifice anything at all for her, and she knows it. She means so little to him that he is unwilling to commit to, but perfectly willing to take advantage and use a soul incapable of defending emotionally healthy boundaries for herself.

Not only does this so-called man lack basic chivalry, but he is like the swine from the parable, consuming pearls with the swill, incapable of appreciating the value of that which he consumes and destroys. This poor woman has deceived herself into believing this is her only way of holding on which isn’t really holding on at all.

Hill’s boyfriend cares so little for her he isn’t even jealous… one of the most basic of human emotions when we feel attached to someone else. There is an axiom that says “He who loves least in a relationship is in control”. This is a textbook case of that I’m afraid.

"Some think it couldn't get any better than what I have," says Dean. "Some, however, don't want to embrace the concept. They feel protective of their partner and don't want to share."

Protective! Bingo! Maybe chivalry isn’t dead after all!

Central to the idea of negotiated infidelity, Hill says, is each couple figuring out what their boundaries are.

Boundaries? Spooning is the boundary? A boundary so far afield is meaningless! How can she advocate boundaries after this mess of logic?

While she admits she shed a few tears at the start of her relationship as she and Dean tested their comfort levels with different arrangements (Dean also says it has definitely been a learning process), they're now very clear about what they will and won't allow.

After her soul died a little bit more, she was ok. His struggle has been waiting for her to soul to weaken so he could have fun with less guilt.

Those rules sound artificial to Marcella Weiner, adjunct professor of Marymount Manhattan College and author of "Repairing Your Marriage After His Affair: A Woman's Guide to Hope and Healing."
"Unless you're totally dead inside of you and have no heart or no brains or no anything -- when you're with another person, you're with another person," said Weiner.

Once again CNN had to add some reason from real psychology professionals or forfeit all credibility with this article. “Totally dead inside and have no brains or no anything” is putting it about right.

While it may not be for everyone, Hill is optimistic that if more people embraced the idea of negotiated infidelity, cheating could become a thing of the past, leading to fewer divorces and truly happy lifelong relationships.

What?!!? “While it may not be for everyone”… are they kidding? Did the author listen to anything the real professionals said at all? The line should read, “While this approach to sexual relationships has an extremely low probability of sustaining a relationship in any way...”

Honestly, what qualifies her to speculate on marriage? She’s sold herself to and been mistress to married men, but that’s apparently as close as she’s come to marriage.

I have to wonder after reading this article if it isn’t Miss Hill’s attempt at making some cash off of some really difficult experiences in her life. I can’t imagine she really buys what she says, because it is pretty self contradicting and illogical. I can’t say I’m surprised at CNN falling this low, but man… this is pretty low.


There is no boundaries anymore. If the gays get marriage what next WILL BE POLYGAMY!! The liberal progresives were never about womens rights, they just wanted to break up the family unit. When feminists say NOTHING about the mistreatment of women and say little to nothing, they show their real intentions.

The comments to this entry are closed.