Last week, Newt Gingrich’s second wife claimed that Newt had approached her with a request for an “open marriage”.  A lot has been said about this, but I have to confess that the most amazing commentary about it all came from Keith Ablow, FOX News Psychaitrist.  In a nutshell, he says that Newt’s philandering represents the appeal of an alpha male and therefore, his fitness for leadership. What?! 

I’m not going to comment on how ridiculous his argument is; it speaks for itself.  (And as a friend said, if the conservatives buy this, someone owes Clinton a huge apology.) What I do want to comment on is what it reveals about how the gender dynamics of cheating have changed. 

Rich, white, heterosexual men have always stepped out on their wives.  This is as much a part of the American Family as apple pie and domestic violence.  Newt is so very typical in this respect.  He, like most of his peers (rich, white, powerful heterosexual men), has been reaping the benefits of compulsory monogamy while enjoying the privileges of practicing non-monogamy.

Herein lies the difference between compulsory monogamy as a social institution and the practice of sexuality in everyday life.

We all know that the institution of monogamy has been more strictly enforced on women than on men.  All of us are familiar with, if not in one way or another facilitating the wink wink about extramarital affairs for men (especially rich white ones).  Men’s philandering is not a violation of the system; it’s part of the system in the form of the “extramarital affair” or “mistress”.  (Notice how we don’t have a word for the men wives fuck on the sly?).  Monogamy has always meant men keeping close cultural and interpersonal tabs on women so they have control and ownership of their wives while all of us not only accept, but also expect non-monogamy on the part of married men. 

I’m not saying that every individual accepts philandering by the men in their lives.  Clearly Newt’s second wife did not.  What I mean is that, when married men cheat on their wives, there has been a collective policy to look the other way.  And though we collectively might have thought it unfortunate and perhaps immoral, it was to be expected and thus, really nothing anyone can do about it.  It’s just what men do.  It’s part of the landscape.  It’s the air we breathe.  It’s part of the system of monogamy.

It was, I think, until now. 

Thanks to the (re)emergence of non-monogamy, open relationships, and polyamory in public discourse, we now have a language that distinguishes ethical and unethical non-monogamy, and that language isn’t gendered!  The difference between acceptable and unacceptable non-monogamy doesn’t hinge on the status of the person (his gender or class position); it depends on whether or not it was ethical—meaning whether or not the person was honest and didn’t violate the agreements made between consenting partners. 

Newt, needless to say, engaged in unethical non-monogamy.  He cheated for years before bringing an “open relationship” to the table, and everyone can see it.  As others have noted, it was a desperate and failed attempt by someone who probably got caught to keep his mistress and his wife—that is, it was a desperate attempt to keep his white, upper class, hetero-masculine privilege to practice non-monogamy while insisting on monogamy for everyone else. 

I think that Newt’s outrage over being asked about this during the republican debate was more about being “outed” than any concern about making the personal political (after all, what were Clinton’s impeachment hearings all about!).  How dare you talk about my behavior!  How dare you talk about married men cheating!  Talking about it threatens the idea that monogamy is the alive and well in the American family.  Talking about it might reveal that rich white hetero dudes seem to think they don’t have to follow the rules but should have the reins of leadership to define and enforce the rules.

And that’s where the FOX news psychiatrist, Ablow comes in.  He is desperately and pathetically trying to come up with a new narrative that equates hetero-masculine privilege with leadership because the old unsaid understanding that powerful boys will be  philandering boys no longer holds water.  Ablow is trying to tell us that unethical non-monogamy makes Newt deserving of prestige and privilege.  I mean, the twist of logic!  Because these men have access to so many women, they deserve to be powerful?  Isn’t it the other way around?  These men have had access to so many women because of their power. 

Nice try, but no one is buying it.  The days of non-monogamy for powerful men and institutionalized monogamy for the rest of us are over.  We have new language about “open relationships” that not only challenges the institutionalization of monogamy, but also the way in which powerful men have rigged the system to their advantage.

Now, if only someone could send a memo to Ablow and Gingrich to let them know.