Andrew Huberman

So like the woman, this wouldn't happen nowadays, most likely, but goes to a bar and like flirts a bit.

And then like some sense of sexual confidence is restored.

And then her husband is then attracted to her differently again.

And, you know, I've heard the more crude phrase, doesn't matter where you get your appetite as long as you eat at home.

This is more of the 1950s, 60s variety.

By the way, none of these statements come from me, although my mouth is saying them.

These are things that you hear out there, right?

Yeah.

Directly in opposition to what you're saying, which is not to say that what you're saying is wrong.

I just think that there was about a 20- or 30-year period there where people kind of assumed that monogamy could thrive despite the inputs and monogamy could thrive –

perhaps even better if people acknowledge this aspect of self that is still attracted to other people.

They talk about it.

What you're talking about is really more of a protective cloak around the commitment.

I do sense people are veering back toward that, what you're describing.

Are you saying it rebounds like it's a fuel for the relationship the way that Esther and other people have talked about?

That's a real thing.

It's going to be very uncomfortable for some people to hear that their partner may come home immensely attracted to them because they had some sort of interaction during the day of either being attracted to someone or receiving signals of attractiveness.

And that's something that evolved in recent years that there used to be far more transient interactions that would never resurface again.

You sit next to someone on a plane, you'd have a conversation.

There might be attraction, there might not be, but you develop some degree of intimacy.