WHY FIDELITY?: Michael Triplett

[Michael is a writer and lawyer in Washington D.C.]

Interesting questions about how we define fidelity and whether the heterosexual definition of fidelity (which seems to be accepted as an ideal, but practiced much less frequently) should apply to same-sex relationships.

What's interesting about your comments and the comments of Maggie Gallagher is the very "feminist" and "gynnocentric" way of looking at things. Every relationship is defined by how it effects women, every rule is defined by women's experiences, almost as though it impossible to imagine deep, intimate, relationships that don't involve women.

Fidelity for men (and not just gay men) is often defined differently. Since sex can be separated from love and relationships, a deep committed relationship "forsaking all others" need not be sexually monogomous. Male couples who have been together for decades no longer define their relationship through sexual intimacy (nor do heterosexual relationships, for that matter). Instead, it's the day in, day out "forsaking all others, in sickness and in health" that keeps the relationship alive. It is "loving" only the person you have committed to, it is sharing your most intimate and cherished moments for that person, it is promising to be with that person until the end. It's not about sex (just as heterosexual relationships often quit being "about sex").

I concur that the female model of fidelity was created, in part, because of the concern about pregnancy and--from a legal standpoint--creating additional heirs who have a stake in property. But pregnancy is not an issue in same-sex relationships so that universal goal and rasion d'etre is gone. Why define all relationships through the female lens of fidelity when it is inapplicable to some relationships?

posted by maggie at 11:23 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home