HOME / the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Katha Pollitt and Andrew Sullivan

the breakfast table:
entries

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Re: Viaggravation

By Andrew Sullivan
Posted Tuesday, May 12, 1998, at 1:55 PM ET

Hi Katha,

RSS

You're dead right about Viagra, of course, although, frankly I'm astonished at the number of straight men who seem to need help getting aroused. But surely some of the tension is inherent in male-female relationships, and Viagra is merely making a difficult match even harder. The objectification of the sexual object, as the evolutionary psychologists seem to me to have proven beyond much of a doubt, is built into male genes; and adultery is its common and often unavoidable consequence. The one thing that helps heterosexual monogamy, of course, apart from social and moral stigma, is the merciful fact that male sexual desire seems to peak in the late teens, and slowly slides downhill thereafter. So, as time goes by, the cost-benefit analysis, in terms of social prestige vs immediate sexual gratification, slowly shifts in favor of the benefits of fidelity. (This is why Aristotle favored marriages in which men were around 20 years older than their wives. Their respective sexual needs were more evenly matched.) What Viagra is surely doing is narrowing the slope of that curve. Hence even more opportunity for men, for even longer periods of time, to betray, abandon and objectify more women, especially their wives. All of which is terrible news for the gender wars, and will surely lead to even more late-life wife trade-ups, and divorce. Why, I wonder, has this not alarmed more feminists? Or social conservatives? You're ahead of the curve on this one, Katha.

Share this article on Digg

Share this article on Buzz

I'm also interested, however, in what the religious right has to say about this. Bob Dole cheerfully admits to being on the pill. But is he on it in order to reproduce? At his age? And if he's on it merely to improve his sex-life, and therefore relationship, have we not conceded that marriage is essentially about mutual love and satisfaction - and not traditional gender roles and kids? And if marriage is defined that way, and the religious right has accepted that, then what argument is left to deny marital recognition to non-procreative gay couples? I can't see anything but prejudice. David Link had a superb piece in the Los Angeles Times this week making a similar point. (As to Giuliani, I'm opposed to these benefits going to unmarried straight couples when the marriage option is available; and think the benefits should be ended for gay couples as soon as marriage becomes legally available.)

All of which shows how technology is dramatically altering our cultural politics. I think it will effectively end the abortion debate before long, for example, by devising an effective abortifacient for women in the first trimester, which no-one can regulate or effectively ban. Here's a rash prediction: within a couple of decades, abortion will be illegal after the first trimester (except for health reasons and rape), and predominantly self-administered before that. Women who have unwanted pregnancies past the first trimester will be told that they had the option of effective contraception and effective abortion earlier and now have to deal with consequences of their choice not to avail themselves of both. It will be a compromise that both sides can learn to live with. And technology will provide it.

later,
Andrew

the breakfast table:
entries