WHAT'S FIDELITY GOT TO DO WITH IT? Eve Tushnet

Hello, all. I'd like to get back to Eve Taggart's letter since she brings us back to a question that keeps recurring in this debate: the question of fidelity.

It's a series of questions, really. Is marriage about "forsaking all others"? Should it be? How do or should ideals of fidelity differ for same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Is fidelity necessarily physical--does "fidelity" mean not having sex with other people? Again, is this definition different, or should it be different, for same-sex and opposite-sex couples?

I think there's at least one large, fairly obvious reason why fidelity is part of the marriage ideal, and why fidelity for opposite-sex couples is defined in (not exclusively, but importantly) physical terms. It's the pregnancy thing again. If your man might make babies with someone else, you're more likely to see the point of restrictions on male sexuality. If you can get pregnant, you're more likely to see the problems that might result if the father isn't legally tied to you. We want babies to come into the world linked to their parents, linked to a man and a woman who have pledged to protect them and who have powerful biological and emotional impulses toward protection. We can certainly talk about other reasons for physical fidelity, but the babies are a big deal.

Fidelity, "forsaking all others," is not the ideal in all close relationships. The emotional closeness of a relationship isn't defined by its exclusivity. Exclusive relationships aren't the only way to provide stability, love, help (as in "helpmeet"), comfort, or challenge to be one's best self. We can see this easily when we look at friendship. Some people--I would guess that women do this more than men, though I can hardly be sure--get very jealous of their friends. They demand exclusivity, "forsaking all others," from friends. But pretty much everyone judges that to be unreasonable. We think that friendships can be deep, life-shaping, intense, good, honorable, ideal, all that wonderful stuff, without requiring that the friends forsake all others.

So perhaps one way to frame my questions (and if this doesn't work for you, by all means take a different approach!) is to ask whether and in what ways homosexual relationships are more like friendships or more like reg'lar-old-marriage when it comes to exclusivity and physical fidelity. ("Exclusivity" = "forsaking all others"; "physical fidelity" = "'forsaking all others' means not sleeping with them.") Or we can ask what the calculus of fidelity is for same-sex couples--what are the benefits and drawbacks of making physical fidelity part of the normative ideal, part of the rules? (One obvious benefit is reduction of sexually-transmitted diseases.)

I do think it's a bit odd to assume that male-male sexual relationships, male-female sexual relationships, and female-female sexual relationships are all more or less interchangeable, with similar needs, structures, and goals. So it's worthwhile to cash out more clearly the ways in which these kinds of relationships are similar and different, and fidelity seems like one of the most important places to look.
posted by maggie at 10:15 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home