To follow up on the previous post, I'm finding quite a few other references to that same New York magazine article online, on Slate.com for example. Many are written from a feminist or post-feminist perspective. It occurred to me that my previous reference to the explanation for cheating as sin may have been a little glib. And if you're going to be a little glib, might as well be a lot glib, so in that spirit, here are the Seven Deadly Sins of that article:
I. Lust: Start with the gimme.
II. Greed: He argues that the hyper-rich and powerful actually have it right with their loveless marriages and mistresses on the side.
III. Sloth: His research on the hyper-rich seems to be entirely composed of half-remembered episodes of "Melrose Place." A majority of the piece is personal anecdotes, and even the science quoted can't seem to find numbers or the possibility of a counterargument. I can find more with a single Google scholar search. Then there's the lack of thinking things through on any level from the relational (is your idea of polyamory really frictionless and costless?) to the editorial (really, this is the cover article?!).
IV. Pride: The solipsism of the personal anecdote, and the inability to truly try to imagine what it might be like to be someone else, like, say, a woman. Or a poor person. Or a theist. Or a reader.
V. Envy: "Those Europeans, they're so lucky to be enlightened about marriage." Merci!
VI. Gluttony: This may be the only one under control, because even at a restaurant he's more interested in the waitress than the food.
VII. Wrath: The general reaction this article created across the blogosphere. Hell hath no fury like a woman caricatured.