Warren Beatty On Monogamy
For me, Beatty's words are reminiscent of what economist Robert H. Frank says about "moral emotions," and love as a commitment device, making you stick with a person when there's a newer, shinier candidate on the horizon:
A "rational" person would dump his partner as soon as he finds a better partnership. Emotional attachment gives more long term meaning to the relationship. Poetically "Those sensible about love are incapable of it."
Jane Boursaw writes at Popeater:
"Being a celebrity in a monogamous marriage is like being a dieter who lives in a bakery," says Alisa Bowman, author of the upcoming book 'Project: Happily Ever After.' "The dieter is trying to live on salads, but she's surrounded by eclairs and cheesecake and profiteroles all day long. Beautiful women throw themselves at celebrity men multiple times a day. Rock stars, sports stars and actors have sexy women flashing them and offering sex at every turn. The rest of us might have the random person interested in us every so often, but that random person usually isn't quite so yummy looking as the types of random people who throw themselves at celebs."So how do they resist the temptation? Maybe they grow out of it and realize there's something beyond one-night stands and serial dating. Warren Beatty was the biggest playboy around, but he seems to have figured it out. In a 2007 story in The Independent, he said of his 18-year marriage to Annette Bening, "She has a great capacity to be happy, which is a great gift to me and an even greater gift to her children ... For me, the highest level of sexual excitement is in a monogamous relationship. I would hate myself if I failed to live up to it."
Lovely sentiments, but do you believe him on the sexual excitement part?
I'm inclined to believe him because he makes no bones about how he was before marriage. Married men tend to cite "different" as a desirable trait in a woman they're interested in bedding. Warren Beatty's had different. He had different for decades. I'm not saying all playboys will become happily monogamous, but it seems to be working for him.
He's always seemed forthright to me. He doesn't strike me as the type of man to court media attention and then get all syrupy over his wonderful relationship. He seems pretty matter-of-fact, even when he's being so sweet about his family. Maybe the sexual excitement part is true for him like it's true for other men: they've done the "different partners every other week" thing and find something exciting in learning and growing sexually with a partner. Some men need to keep changing sexual partners, but some men who've done that get excited by what they hadn't really had before. It would probably help if that something came with someone as gorgeous as Annette Bening.
Another part of it might be that he's now 73 years old. A really good-looking, sexy 73, but 73 all the same. So he was with Annette when he was over 50. There are many male celebrities over 50 who definitely still have it, but I have to think the offers would start dropping off slightly. Not completely, but slightly. There will always be sweet young things throwing themselves at sexy movie stars, but even the sexiest among them will start looking old to a twenty-something. Although this twenty-something will take him over swinging bachelor Jack Nicholson any day of the week.
Maybe he has the key: wait until you've sowed a few decades' worth of oats and then figure out if you want a family. It seems sensible. And he probably had many more oats than the average guy.
NumberSix at June 7, 2010 11:53 PM
In the years I was doing a lot of tabloid tv, he was often being precisely "syrupy" about it... The one thing this guy never failed to do was court attention. Decades of oat harvesting before marriage seems sensible enough... But fathers in their 70's might not work so well if every family had one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 8, 2010 12:14 AM
Fair point, Crid. I should have specified that it was my impression of him during my lifetime. I am aware of the old playboy Warren Beatty who bedded nearly every female costar he ever had and bragged about it to anyone who would hold still long enough. It seems to me that there was a personality shift later in his life. Whether marriage was the cause or effect of that, I don't know, but present-day Warren seems more mature to me than Bonnie and Clyde Warren. He seems more settled and less prone to antics now. It could just be that he's not the debonair leading man anymore and therefore is in the media less, meaning those young women aren't propositioning him left, right, and center. But he's also not showing up in all the industry mags begging someone to pay attention to him. Again, this is all my perception, but he seems to have aged gracefully.
NumberSix at June 8, 2010 1:03 AM
>>And he probably had many more oats than the average guy.
NumberSix,
Beatty was quite funny once, on that score. He was dealing in his usual vague & smooth way in an interview - possibly a rare tv interview - with the usual "legendary lover" questions & he suddenly muttered:
"You know what's unfair? I'm the one with this reputation but there were other guys who got away with far more than me. No one ever mentions Dustin Hoffman, but in those days - if you knew Dusty...!!"
Then he trailed away - looking genuinely stunned.
Jody Tresidder at June 8, 2010 5:10 AM
Warren seems more mature to me than Bonnie and Clyde Warren. He seems more settled and less prone to antics now.
70'll do that to ya.
Amy Alkon at June 8, 2010 5:24 AM
"A "rational" person would dump his partner as soon as he finds a better partnership"
Playing devil's advocate here, but if he finds a "better" partnership, and it is indeed "better", as specifically stated, then why is that a bad thing exactly?
"Emotional attachment gives more long term meaning to the relationship."
He just accidentally stated that he thinks "better" is the opposite of "long term meaning". What is this fuzzy "long term meaning" concept, and why *should* one want it if there is something else that is, as stated and thus by definition, "better"? Does he perhaps mean that 'true love' is a form of suffering and that it's noble to endure it? How horrible.
"Poetically "Those sensible about love are incapable of it.""
Again, a value judgment against something he just defined as inferior.
Love is a biological addiction to another human. Aha. It gives you warm and fuzzies for bioligical reasons. And it is what it is. You will form that bond in a committed, positive partnership with anyone you get along with reasonably well, and you will feel sad losing anyone you've formed that bond with, like any addict it will be painful to withdraw.
"A "rational" person would dump his partner as soon as he finds a better partnership"
This is not true anyway. It takes time to get to know somehow new. You'd have to make a huge time and effort investment in order to even know if someone is truly better. Any new partnership thus has a high risk, while an existing parternship that is working has no risk because you already know what you're in for. Add to that that it's very difficult to find people we really get along with well, and then add to that it will be painful to lose someone we already love --- it only takes a little "rational" thinking to deduce that if you are already with someone with whom you get along well, that it is NOT rational to increase your risk by leaving that person for someone you know less well, and could cause problems. In other words, the rational person remains faithful, for rational interests, in self-interest --- and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are "capable of love".
I smell irrational fear of reason.
Lobster at June 8, 2010 5:53 AM
He seems to have settled into a quieter life since he married. I think he's a Hollywood hog nog and can convince himself of anything including that he finds monogamy exciting. I'm sure that he's had his moments of boredom, but he lived the live before marriage and obviously he weighed the pros and cons of remaining with his wife. He is trying to be poetic about making a commitment and sticking to it. So far, until the various mistresses crawl out of the woodwork, I'd say he has done a pretty good job with the marriage and kids things.
Kristen at June 8, 2010 5:54 AM
Yes, sexual excitement is possible in a longtime marriage! I can say no more. :-)
DorianTB at June 8, 2010 5:59 AM
"Lovely sentiments, but do you believe him on the sexual excitement part?"
Sexual excitement has different facets. A sexy stranger, that is highly exciting in various ways ... something new and different, usually something more physically attractive and younger, a rush to your ego, etc. ... but less exciting in other ways, e.g. you would have to use protection and worry about HIV/STDs etc., you don't really know the person's intentions, you may worry about being caught if you're cheating, etc. Having a partner you know is 'clean and safe' that you can go at it unprotected, that is exciting.
Lobster at June 8, 2010 6:01 AM
You can be certain of "different and new" but you might not be getting "better." It's not too likely that you can just go back to the previous one if the new one doesn't work out.
I'd call it experienced enough to know that you might be able to do better, but will probably do much worse.
MarkD at June 8, 2010 6:07 AM
I think it does get old for these playboys, just like eating eclairs every day would. As much as we think we'd never tire of endless sweets, after a certain point, they'd make you puke.
Plus, after 50, testosterone declines. So, mix that with the boredom developing in playing the field, and you finally have a playboy ready to settle down.
Marry him too soon and he'll cheat - maybe forever because he won't have gotten his fill. Bening came along at the exact right moment. I think he finds her smart, charming, and a great mother, but I doubt he's having the best sex of his life.
lovelysoul at June 8, 2010 6:22 AM
Lobster - You'd have to make a huge time and effort investment in order to even know if someone is truly better. Any new partnership thus has a high risk, while an existing parternship that is working has no risk because you already know what you're in for. Add to that that it's very difficult to find people we really get along with well, and then add to that it will be painful to lose someone we already love...
Well said. Combine this with the sunk cost fallacy, and you have an explanation of why people stay in crappy relationships.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at June 8, 2010 7:43 AM
"A "rational" person would dump his partner as soon as he finds a better partnership"
If you have a good partner, you won't be looking for a better one. How would you find out that there was a better partnership unless you were dating others?
"I doubt he's having the best sex of his life."
Youth doesn't necessarily correspond with better sex. My wife, at 54, doesn't have the body of my first wife (19 when I met her) or my second (31), but she is beautiful. She is enthusiastic and giving and I can honestly say I am having the best sex of my life at 57. And with more frequency than any other time in my life.
Steamer at June 8, 2010 8:38 AM
I think sex with monogamy CAN be the best. In a good relationship there is that trust to let you really open up to what you need and desire, and you learn what each other do and don't like. Nothing's more irritating than having sex with someone who does something you can't stand in the midle of it (do NOT twist my niples! They are not radio dials!!!)So having gotten past to basics, you can move on to double black diamond activities.
I worked in a bakery. Sure, you indulge a few weeks. Then you get damn sick of it and want a salad. I was wild enough before this marriage and after my first one to know there's not anything better in anyone else's bed. That's valuable knowledge.
momof4 at June 8, 2010 9:28 AM
do NOT twist my niples! They are not radio dials!!!
Funny!!
Or, Do I look like a damn Etch-a-Sketch???
Pirate Jo at June 8, 2010 9:42 AM
>>I doubt he's having the best sex of his life.
It's called projection.
Studies have shown that old retired people often report it as the best time of their life, and if sex were that bad, it wouldn't be the best time of their life.
Sex is not simple. In the current society, people get all wrapped up in what I call the "adrenalin" side of sex, the rather intense if not always emotionally fulfilling sex involved with what my home community called "Strange Stuff", and my doctor friend here calls, "Fresh Meat."
I had a buddy in my younger days, who had a bit of luck with women. He said his first lover, the sexual excitement with her lasted six months.
The next one was almost exactly half that long. Etc.
He said after a few years, it lasted about Fifteen Glorious Seconds.
He got bored, and decided it was time to find a wife and have his family, and did not look back. I suspect that happened to Warren as well.
Yes, it is true older men have lower levels of testosterone, in general. However, the Founders of the US used to talk about effeminate luxury. Living in comfort and luxury, the norm in the US, does reduce testosterone. Here in the Third World, life is harder, but I can assure you at 68 my testosterone levels are not zeroed out.
Also, those levels change at different hours. Most married sex in the US tends to be after 11 pm Friday or Saturday night. B-O-R-I-N-G. That is enough to destroy all your testosterone when you are 29.
My peak is around 2 pm, in the afternoon. It took a while, my wife thought an afternooner wasn't nice. Now she thinks it is cool, too. I don't know if she hinted to her friends, but no one ever comes to our house in the mid-afternoon, heh, heh.
Games help. We are 'baptizing' every room in the house. The hardest was the upstairs room, with windows all around, and we live on a mountainside. I looked at it from every angle to see how visible we might be, and we must have pulled it off, because the police didn't come.
The big one is the roof itself in the full of the moon, even though that risks late evening testosterone sag-out. Alas, we are on a mountainside and that roof is visible from a great distance. I am thinking to bring my old Eureka Timberline next time I go back to the States. That won't be as good as au natural, but seems to be the only practical solution that doesn't involve jail and deportation.
irlandes at June 8, 2010 9:52 AM
Irlandes, I think it would be awful to be expected to "baptise" every room in the house. Where's the spontaneity in that? "Ok, we haven't done the laundry room yet, that's next on the list..."
I absolutely agree that sex can be much better in a mongamous relationship, and even as we get older. I just meant that Beatty has been with some really exquisite women in his day and they couldn't have all been bad lays. Whether sex with his wife is the best or not, at least he has the good sense to say so! :)
I believe there are men who are naturally more monogamous than others. My fiance is a wonderful lover, but he's also kind of a homebody, and I've noticed that he likes to go back to the same places we've already been - same restaurants, clubs, vacation spots, etc. He is loyal to his habits and routine, if that makes any sense. He doesn't seem to get bored as easily.
I was kind of complaining to myself about this the other day, then I realized that this might, in fact, be connected to his ability to be monogamous. A more restless spirit, who is always craving something different, is probably also less satisfied with whatever woman he has.
lovelysoul at June 8, 2010 10:30 AM
>>Irlandes, I think it would be awful to be expected to "baptise" every room in the house. Where's the spontaneity in that? "Ok, we haven't done the laundry room yet, that's next on the list..."
As is often the case, LS has no clue.
Whoever said all games have to be purely spontaneous to be fun? WTF? If spontaneity is the only parameter on your personal list, fine.
I guess.
Do you really believe when you are almost 70, you can expect spontaneity every time, after you've done almost everything humanly possible hundreds of times? I don't think you are going to like being old if spontaneity is the only item on your list.
I suspect others can understand the fun in the mutual planning; the cooperative logistics; the anticipation, as each new room is checked off.
Also, if you had any clue, you would know that many older women simply cannot do what they could do when they were young. They often need lubricants, which by its nature tends to mandate some planning. But, you either didn't know that, or didn't stop to think, did you?
And, quite a few have a problem called Vaginismus.
Yep, no clue at all, but that didn't slow you down one iota. Exude vast amounts of superior wisdom and let your inferiors know their true status.
irlandes at June 8, 2010 1:56 PM
irlandes, why do you go on the attack when confronted with a rather tame oppositional statement like lovelysoul's? It's one thing not to agree with her and state the reasons why, but why the statements about her having no clue? Is it because of past arguments? Because, I gotta tell you, it just looks petty. She stated her problem with your position, but you got all defensive and started insulting her intelligence. Why not just explain where you're coming from on the subject? You actually did do that, in between petty attacks.
lovelysoul's point about being "expected to baptize every room in the house" is valid, but so is your argument that spontaneity decreases as you get older and more settled in your relationship. You'd be better off just making your points without attacking anyone who dares question your position.
I'll apologize to lovelysoul if she doesn't want me defending her, because she doesn't really need it, but I keep noticing this pattern with irlandes, so I felt the need to speak up.
NumberSix at June 8, 2010 4:29 PM
Re: "For me, the highest level of sexual excitement is in a monogamous relationship.", and
"... do you believe him on the sexual excitement part?"
Yes. I suspect Beatty found something uniquely wonderful in married sex that he lacked during his playboy days.
I can't help recalling the late Paul Newman's famous quote, after he was asked if he ever strayed: "Why should I go out for a hamburger when I can get steak at home?"
Iconoclast at June 8, 2010 6:15 PM
DH and I are working our way through the house. It's not like a "okay, the half bath is up tonight" kind of thing, it's more a one of us gets frisky, and then we'll stop for a minute, and one of us will say "Hmm, haven't tried out the laundry room yet!" and off we go sort of thing. Fun. Like skinny dipping in Barton springs after climbing the fence in the middle of the night, or the top of a empty parking garage on date night......you really have to take advantage when you have a babysitter!
momof4 at June 8, 2010 7:33 PM
I miss the christening all the rooms in the house days just as I miss the christening all the rooms in the house again days!
Kristen at June 8, 2010 7:49 PM
christening all the rooms in the house days
Just don't forget the rinse cycle on the washer when working in the laundry room. ;-)
Jim P. at June 8, 2010 8:33 PM
Geeze, Irlandes. TMI. You're clueless if you think we want to hear your wife's lubrication issues.
lovelysoul at June 9, 2010 4:37 AM
"I miss the christening all the rooms in the house days just as I miss the christening all the rooms in the house again days!"
We're moving August 1! Heh, heh.
Steamer at June 9, 2010 1:22 PM
Hola, My name is Mr Shed Plans aka Todd Phelps. Thank you for the for the awesome post I always enjoy reading your blog. I will be back soon to check for new posts. Thanks
Mr Shed Plans at October 10, 2010 8:05 PM
Leave a comment