MARRIAGE AND MONOGAMY: Lynn Gazis-Sax replies to Mark Barton

[Lots of good points here; I feel like a jerk excerpting at all. Read the whole thing!]

...Now, as it happens I am on Mark's side, and not Eve's, on the issue of whether same sex couples should be legally accepted into civil marriage. That seems, though, to be the limit of how far I am on Mark's side of the debate; as I read his and Eve's views about sexual relations in general, and, in particular, about the degree to which heterosexual sex can reasonably be expected to be separated from pregnancy, I find myself far more sympathetic to Eve's side of the debate. So, let me count the ways in which I disagree with Mark. ...

Now, it is true that the overwhelming majority of married couples in the US these days (myself and my husband included) have, in fact, lived together before marriage. And it is true that, in a culture in which people who don't live together before marriage are distinctive in their social views, a lower divorce rate might be expected in those who don't live together. But, I really have to doubt the rationality of an argument that waiting till marriage is some kind of reckless willingness to marry in ignorance, when there is no evidence whatsoever that marriages where people didn't have premarital sex fare worse than those where people did, and some evidence that their divorce rate is lower. I'd say that, under those circumstances, sticking by your religious beliefs in premarital chastity is a rational choice.

Second, Mark argues that acceptance of some extramarital sexual activity makes for a more stable relationship. Since I am not a gay man, but rather a bisexual woman, I can't comment on the experience of gay men in this regard. I can say that I've seen no evidence in either the lesbian or the straight world that this is the case. On the contrary, the evidence I see around me is that, hard and "unrealistic" though it may be to expect to stay sexually faithful to one person, it seems to be even more unrealistic to expect to tolerate your spouse sleeping with another person. I do encounter some heterosexually married couples who tolerate fantasy activity (porn, and to a lesser extent cybersex) that other heterosexually married couples consider infidelity. And I once knew what appeared to be a contented lesbian threesome. But in general, I see less stability and happiness in sexually open heterosexual relationships than in monogamous ones, and few lesbian takers for non-monogamy, so I have to doubt Mark's psychology here.

Moreover, a cultural shift toward polyamory in marriage would harm regular old monogamous marriages, in a way that same sex marriage itself does not. The benefit of marriage isn't just in the privileges it grants; it is also in the expectations that it places on you. If sexual fidelity isn't something expected of marriage, but rather a mere private arrangement--something as optional as avoiding premarital sex is now--then I no longer benefit from the general expectation that my husband and I are no longer open to sexual propositions.

Third, Mark argues that the availability of reliable birth control, with abortion as a backup, has transformed sexual relationships to such an extent that pregnancy need no longer be seen as a reason to constrain sexual behavior, even when it comes to arrangements permitting husbands and wives to have sex outside of marriage. ...

...But let's look at Alan Guttmacher Institute figures on contraception and abortion (PDF). More than 90% of American couples use contraception in any given month; nevertheless, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. 53% of all women who have unintended pregnancies were using a contraceptive method during the month in which they got pregnant, though usually not correctly every time.

...Being sexually responsible, in heterosexual terms, can't just mean taking precautions; it has to include thinking ahead to what you and your partner will do if contraception fails.

This brings me to my fourth disagreement with Mark: Mark is way too glib about abortion. ...

And, remember, this whole argument comes up in the context of whether straight married couples can benefit from allowing some sex outside of their marriage. So, if a husband's mistress' birth control fails, what is the wife to expect? That she'll get an abortion to suit the wife's convenience? That she'll forgo her right to support from the father of her child because she doesn't want to trouble his wife? It's just wildly unrealistic to advocate marital "arrangements" without considering the fact that pregnancies will result.

more
posted by Eve at 7:31 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home