Author: Andrew Sullivan

Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá have a new book on the evolution of sexuality. They argue – duh – that monogamy is unnatural:

Biologists distinguish sexual monogamy from social monogamy. As DNA testing has grown cheaper in recent years, we’ve learned that most species formerly classified as “monogamous” (primarily birds) are socially monogamous, but not sexually so. In other words, they form pairs that cooperatively care for that season’s brood of young, but the male may well not be the biological father. Applied to humans, we argue that a more flexible approach to sexual fidelity can increase marital stability and thus lead to greater social and family stability.

In a Q&A with the authors the open relationships of some gay couples are discussed:

First of all, they’re both men, so they both know what it’s like to be a man. They both know from experience that love and sex are two very different things, and it seems that for women the experience of sexuality is much more embedded in narrative, in emotion, in emotional intimacy. But also it’s really hard to judge what women would be like if they hadn’t been persecuted for the last five or six thousand or ten thousand years for any hint of infidelity.

Gay men in the United States have also by definition gone through a process of self-examination. The whole process of coming out is a process of integrating sexuality into your life in a way that takes courage, and it’s not something that happens naturally. I think gay people have an advantage because they’ve already gone through a process of saying: "Look, my sexuality is what it is. I’m not ashamed of it. I’m going to live openly and in accord with it." That puts them on a different level than most heterosexual people who are able to pass along and pretend that they fit into the normal parameters.

Jonah Lehrer praises the Wii:

For decades, video game designers have been obsessed with visual realism, as if the eyeball was the key to our emotional brain. But accurate graphics have diminishing returns. At a certain point, we don't need more pixels – we need more physicality. For the first time, video games are taking advantage of their specific medium, exploiting the features that other entertainments (such as movies and novels) are missing. No other form of culture, after all, depends on the verb "to play". (We play video games – we don't watch or read them.) But here's the thing about playing: it's much more captivating when the play itself is a physical act, when we play not just with the mind but with the body.

Mark Larson reflects on learning of a friend's death over Facebook:

Coming from a generation that grew up with Facebook and lived in a world in which relationships weren’t official until they were on the social networking site, in a strange way finding out about a friend dying in war via Facebook made it more real. You could still go to his profile and see the pictures he’d posted of the nights he spent out before deploying or the hundreds of posts on his wall from grieving friends trying to send a message one last time. In this way such a profile acts as a public memorial, and a welcome one, since its existence reminds all those in his social circle precisely what is at stake in a war that has zero effect on their day-to-day lives.

Leonhart finds a study comparing the current downturn to the 1982 recession:

Strikingly, for nearly every age group the unemployment rate is higher today than it was during the worst of the early 1980s recession.

And DiA isn't impressed by the Obama administration's attempt to put a positive spin on today's underwhelming job report:

The average voter is most likely to have job opportunities as a ready heuristic about the state of the economy, not the manufacturing production index. For the White House to frame a fairly depressing report about people's lived experiences as a sign of "continued healing" strikes one of those dissonant notes that we thought Barack Obama, the great communicator, would avoid as president.

Drum ponders retraining:

In addition to a simple aggregate lack of jobs due to the recession, what we're suffering from right now is still more of a sectoral shift issue more than a basic skills issue. If you look at lists of the fastest growing occupations, they've always been populated mainly by jobs that require a high school degree and some specialized training. Lots of them are in healthcare (physical therapists, dental assistants, etc.) and lots of them require specific computer skills. Laid off factory workers just can't jump into these jobs without retraining, and as Matt Steinglass points out, the success of government retraining programs has been pretty dismal over the years.

Erik Kain looks for signs of hope:

One reason I enjoy the writing of center-right thinkers such as Reihan Salam or Ross Douthat (among others) is that rather than constantly taking a position against liberals or other conservatives, they are constantly on the prowl for good ideas.

I think this is especially true of Reihan, whose wonkish blog over at NRO can only be described as a sort of positive conservatism. Instead of focusing on simply being in opposition to the liberal agenda – which is, really, a fairly easy task – this brand of conservatism is always perusing the market of good ideas. This doesn’t mean you can’t also be against bad ideas, but only that every oppositional stance should be paired with a positive solution. The bank tax is wrong – here’s why, and here’s a better idea. The healthcare bill is going to be a disaster – here’s why, and here’s a better idea. Positive conservatism, for it to be effective at all, also must avoid Utopianism if it is to avoid the progressive pitfall.

Steele has already attempted to walk back the remarks. Larison sees Steele's criticism of Afghanistan as a failed attempt to play politics:

Steele evidently believes that Afghanistan is now a political liability for Obama, and he wants to take advantage of this, but far from being a potential “turning point” it is just another example of how clueless and hopeless Steele is when it comes to serving in a leadership capacity for Republicans. I can hardly wait to hear how Steele’s cynical posturing is another sign of the rise of antiwar Republicanism.

Frum's take:

Maybe the strategy is genuinely wrong. Maybe the Afghanistan commitment is not worth the costs. Maybe instituting a stable central government in Afghanistan is an over-ambitious project. Again: fine. But with the guns firing, that’s a point of view to advocate in a serious and considered way, as part of a debate over national interests, not to score political points. The debate should be aimed at finding a resolution in Afghanistan that is maximally successful for the U.S. and partners, not the way that is maximally humiliating to the president. Obama may fail in Afghanistan. But if he does, the whole country fails with him.

Charlie Cook continues to think it will be a very bad election for Democrats:

The potential is here for a result that is proportional to some of the bigger postwar midterm wave elections. These kinds of waves are often ragged; almost always some candidates who looked dead somehow survive and others who were deemed safe get sucked down in the undertow. That's the nature of these beasts. But the recent numbers confirm that trends first spotted late last summer have fully developed into at least a Category 3 or 4 hurricane.