WHY FIDELITY? Paul Nathanson
Triplett's comments on fidelity are interesting, especially his recognition of gynocentric biases. But I'm not sure that his purely emotional definition of fidelity is more useful than the emotional and sexual one preferred by women. Just as people can look outside of marriage for purely sexual needs, after all, they can do the same for purely emotional ones. Or is his definition purely emotional? He describes it as "sharing your most intimate and cherished moments." Well, that sounds like emotion to me (and could just as easily describe friendship as marriage). But frankly, I don't what he means by "loving only the person you have committed to."
Historically and cross-culturally, what has bound people together in marriage has never been personal gratification as an end in itself (although that has usually been considered desirable) but communal needs (which have usually been backed up by theological claims). If marriage is to be entirely a matter of personal gratification, whether sexual or emotional, it will have no substance and will thus be ephemeral. That goes for both straight people, by the way, and gay people. This is what bothers me about the push for gay marriage. Legalizing it would institutionalize a notion of marriage that has already been impoverished almost beyond recognition.
posted by maggie at
6:05 PM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home