That’s different, though, from justifying irresponisble and selfish behavior. Hugo’s young friend’s boyfriend could have just as easily had a whirlwind dating life while behaving responsibly towards his girlfriend; not cheating, for example. (Of course, this rather common scenario is one reason I think serial monogamy in dating is idiotic.)

To be frank, I never liked the phrase “settling down,” either, as I’m not sure exactly what it’s supposed to mean. Does it suggest that everyone is out “sowing oats” until he gets tired of it, and then and only then he can think about marriage, wife, and family? Or does it have a non-sexual context?

Wrong. Wrecked marriage, with aftershocks continuing 22 years after the affair and 12 years after the divorce. Now my college-age son has jumped on board the condemnation bandwagon (having recently been told by his still-vindictive father), and he didn’t even come along until three and a half years after the event, so it’s not like his paternity is in question or anything.

I can’t help but think, would a man be going through this? Doubtful. It would be written off as “just another little adventure in the life of a normal young man.” But a woman? Oh, perish the thought. We’re either Madonnas (the one in the Raphael paintings, not the one on MTV) or whores.

Nuts to that, y’all. You don’t like the way I behaved, go find someone else to send you checks.

Harumph.

My thoughts about this is the extent to which relationship and sexual norms are contextualized by social expectations, something that was only somewhat brushed on here. The “sowing the wild oats” phase (and did you ever go a few rounds with that metaphor!), as you pointed out, has been an expectation of young men going back to at least the 17th century, or at least the metaphor has existed since then. Perhaps something similar has at least partially arisen for young (and not so young, ala “Sex and the City”) women in recent decades, fraught as it may still be with double standards. Or perhaps not. Others have shown themselves more qualified to address the relative position of young women on this score.

The “wild oats” phase appears to have been and to be something that is tacitly tolerated, if not condoned, for a particular phase of a young man’s life. At some point, at least historically, religion, reputation and social standing, the expectations of parents and of the community, and legal and economic structures (the legitimacy of and provision for offspring, inheritance, extension of insurance coverage, vagaries of the tax codes, et cetera ad infinitum) collectively represented the social expectation of eventual monogamy.

Much of that has broken down in the last 50 years or so. The mores that demanded monogamy arising from religion and community norms receded in cosmopolitan settings. Contraception and abortion made illegitimacy and single-parenthood in the absence of marriage a wholly avoidable outcome for many (and, for others, an affirmative choice). The law changed to reflect new circumstances, to make dissolving marriage easier and to extend previously the exclusive benefits of marriage to others. And the rising costs of living, of time and money invested in careers, and of raising a family further pushed back that choice for many, and made it a decision worthy, at the very least, of greater preparation and consideration.

The point is that the norm that people were to eventually settle down into staid monogamy, and that “sowing oats” was, at most, a phase, occurred in a very specific cultural context that, in many ways, no longer exists. It cannot be definitively said to represent or to have ever represented any generally applicable and appropriate life-plan fulfilling genuine basic human needs for all people. Absent the cultural demands for eventual monogamy and marriage, the choices of some today, including perhaps those who “have been sowing their oats fairly consistently since the early days of disco”, may better and more nearly reflect and fulfill their own personal and social needs and preferences. This isn’t an excuse for reckless or irresponsible behavior. The modern age presents new norms of responsibility, particularly in the age of AIDS, “deadbeat dads”, and sex scandals, that carry serious consequences if violated (more serious in many ways than, say, having a scion or two born below the bar sinister would have been 400 years ago). And certainly we all ought to be as considerate of the needs and desires of the people in our lives, for the time that they are in our lives, to the extent that our own needs and desires as autonomous individuals permit. But a disinclination towards or the impracticality of the “Ozzie and Harriet thing” does not necessarily itself recklessness or irresponsibility make. At the very least, there is a good argument to make, given longer life-expectancies and the rising cost of living, career and family formation, that a longer period of adolescence and young adulthood, with all the experimentation and freedom from later commitments that come with these, ought to be considered a natural and unsurprising reflection of the contemporary state of affairs.