Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Marital faithfulness is irrelevant to feminism" : Discuss (Original Post) Taverner Apr 2013 OP
Faithfulness in a marriage HappyMe Apr 2013 #1
I agree with the little person.. one_voice Apr 2013 #12
Agree, and agree. n/t LadyHawkAZ Apr 2013 #30
No but its relevant to being a human Drale Apr 2013 #2
Well, yours is certainly ONE opinion MNBrewer Apr 2013 #10
True, but misleading. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #3
This. nt redqueen Apr 2013 #5
Feminism is Ethics; Faithfulness is Morals Taverner Apr 2013 #7
I don't think there's a universally-applied distinction between the two. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #8
Sure there is. Taverner Apr 2013 #9
There is no universal difference between the two. Many philosophers use them interchangeably. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #16
i actually like this distinction and find it helpful.. Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #28
Define "faithfulness" MNBrewer Apr 2013 #11
I think it's whatever the couple decides on BainsBane Apr 2013 #18
I don't, but I think you possibly should be for different reasons. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #20
Separate issues get the red out Apr 2013 #4
whatever someone may say about it RainDog Apr 2013 #6
Maybe it's a straight thing MNBrewer Apr 2013 #13
I'm gay Aerows Apr 2013 #14
This exactly. It's between the married people and no one else. Butterbean Apr 2013 #19
To me? Aerows Apr 2013 #23
Yes, I was agreeing with your post above mine. Sorry, my brain is scrambled these days. n/t Butterbean Apr 2013 #33
Then, IMO, you've made a commitment to monogamy, not a commitment to the relationship MNBrewer Apr 2013 #22
A commitment to the relationship Aerows Apr 2013 #24
I think it's a married with children thing RainDog Apr 2013 #17
Threesomes Aerows Apr 2013 #26
to each her/his own and all that RainDog Apr 2013 #32
Even polyamorous people usually pledge faithfulness to those they are dating. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #15
There seems to be widespread disagreement on what the word "Feminism" even means. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #21
Trust maintained when offered is relevant to everyone. Posteritatis Apr 2013 #25
To my mind unconnected; and I'm not interested in either as a MORAL issue. snot Apr 2013 #27
it's actually fairly simple.. Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #29
I am not married, but have been in a number of relationships where it was understood that smirkymonkey Apr 2013 #31

HappyMe

(20,277 posts)
1. Faithfulness in a marriage
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:52 PM
Apr 2013

is only relevant to the couple in the marriage. And yeah, it is irrelevant to feminism.

one_voice

(20,043 posts)
12. I agree with the little person..
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:04 PM
Apr 2013

running around with their hair on fire.

Been married for over 20 years and it wasn't feminism that got me to 20 plus.

Drale

(7,932 posts)
2. No but its relevant to being a human
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:54 PM
Apr 2013

If you shouldn't enter into a marriage with someone lightly. You should be ready to spend your entire life with them. I understand sometimes people change and it doesn't work out but far to many people give up way to easily and not just on marriage its a problem of our society in general.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
3. True, but misleading.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:59 PM
Apr 2013

Both are facets of moral behaviour.

Feminists should be in favour of faithfulness in marriage, because everybody should be in favour of faithfulness in marriage, but feminism is not in itself a reason to be.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
8. I don't think there's a universally-applied distinction between the two.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:11 PM
Apr 2013

What are you using the distinction to mean?

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
16. There is no universal difference between the two. Many philosophers use them interchangeably.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:19 PM
Apr 2013
 

Phillip McCleod

(1,837 posts)
28. i actually like this distinction and find it helpful..
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:41 PM
Apr 2013

..but am forced to acknowledge that there are multiple non-contradictory meanings for each term.

no wonder psychology is called a 'soft science'.

..

there's a somewhat constructive dialogue on this topic in the religion forum right now. here ya go..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121875914

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
11. Define "faithfulness"
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:03 PM
Apr 2013

Do you mean monogamy? Sexual exclusivity? Why should I be in favor of THAT?

BainsBane

(57,744 posts)
18. I think it's whatever the couple decides on
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:12 PM
Apr 2013

For some that's monogamy, for others it isn't.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
20. I don't, but I think you possibly should be for different reasons.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:54 AM
Apr 2013

I don't think that polygamy is the same as unfaithfulness.

My (limited) observation suggests that there are more people who think that polygamy or serial monogamy will make them happier than settling down with one person than there are people for whom that is actually the case, though, so I would tentatively suggest that you should be in favour of monogamy/exclusivity.

But whereas fidelity is a matter of ethics, monogamy is purely a matter of judgement - if someone chooses something else, that's in no way immoral, just potentially unwise. And I'm far from confident of that.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
6. whatever someone may say about it
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

the reality is that we are socially monogamous (i.e. we marry and pledge to be monogamous) but within marriage both males and females step out from time to time.

that doesn't mean everyone does - it just means that's what's going on behind all the stated belief.

I was with the same person for 17 years and never had an affair and, afaik, he didn't either. Sex was never the issue of contention in our marriage. But we both knew others who did, some who, btw, talk about how their spouse is the love of their life, etc... I know one person who was recently talking about this for an anniversary, and I declined to mention to anyone that, oh yeah, well, except for that one time (that I know of.)



MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
13. Maybe it's a straight thing
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:06 PM
Apr 2013

I'm gay and hold no social expectation of monogamy for any same sex couples. married or otherwise. I extend the same courtesy to opposite sex couples.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
14. I'm gay
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:13 PM
Apr 2013

and I expect monogamy if I make a commitment (which is why I am very careful about making a commitment). Anything less is a deal breaker.

That said, people are free to conduct their relationships in a way that both parties agree with. If both parties don't agree, then that is cheating, and again, that's a deal breaker for me.

Heaven knows I have no aversion to playing the field, but if you make a commitment to someone, then you should stick with it - unless, of course, you and your partner agree together that commitment doesn't include sexual exclusivity.

Butterbean

(1,014 posts)
19. This exactly. It's between the married people and no one else.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:17 PM
Apr 2013

The fact that I am faithful to my husband has nothing to do with feminism. The person that I know (for an absolute fact) who has cheated on her husband made that decision based on nothing having to do with feminism.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
23. To me?
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:28 PM
Apr 2013

It's selfishness if you made a commitment and you break that commitment. That's what marriage means.

The sex of the parties involved matters not, and anyone trying to muddy the waters by saying "Well I go at it with everyone I want to go at it with, and my partner doesn't mind" misses completely what a commitment means.

I have an expectation of sexual monogamy when I commit to a partner. You don't have to do so.

And you have no obligation to agree with me, but that is what I believe.

Butterbean

(1,014 posts)
33. Yes, I was agreeing with your post above mine. Sorry, my brain is scrambled these days. n/t
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:36 PM
Apr 2013

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
22. Then, IMO, you've made a commitment to monogamy, not a commitment to the relationship
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:57 PM
Apr 2013

But that's just my view.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
24. A commitment to the relationship
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:30 PM
Apr 2013

is a commitment to monogamy for me. There are no differences for me, because I don't commit to less than that. You are free to conduct you relationships the way you choose.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
17. I think it's a married with children thing
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:39 PM
Apr 2013

And the reason that monogamy has been promoted (and the reason there's more stigma for females who step out) is to insure that a man was spending his energy to raise his own child, not someone else's.

This is the nuclear family view of family, rather than a larger, extended family view.

As a lot of people here know, one of the best examinations of the origin of monogamy came from Engels - within the context of looking at female subjugation within societies.

Engels states that the nuclear family model, and the pretense of monogamy for all marriage, and tracing children through the male line is also the origin of prostitution - b/c females are divided into those who are under the name of one male for financial survival, or those who earn money by selling sex. Historically, prostitutes were oftentimes women whose husbands had died, etc. and they had no source of income. This still goes on among poor people in just about every society I can think of.

But the issue comes down to males as uncles or males as fathers as their role in a family - so you're just seeing things as an uncle.

This is also the way that primatologists look at homosexuality within humans as a genetic factor that was positive - those who weren't attracted to the opposite sex wouldn't be dealing with their own kids, and they were helping out with those whose biology meant that they would. The benefit is through carrying on the extended family gene - in terms of the selfish gene issue. Whether that's true or not - I think the point is that this makes sense when you're not looking at a nuclear family as "the" unit of society.

Since our society has so few protections for women who place childcare before building a career - women who have chosen this route have to contend with sexual jealousy. they're afraid they'll lose standing and income in society if their guy decides to have sex with another woman. This is why so many of them are religious - they get a REALLY big guy on their side. But men have sexual jealousy, too (my ex was jealous for no reason.) Or rather, the reason is that they don't want another guy's kid around, and don't want to lose their kids since our laws favor kids going with their mother for the most part.

I've said, a lot of times, that I wonder what female behavior would be like if they didn't have to worry about their economic survival or that of their children if all women, and men, for that matter, knew they would not suffer by not adhering to the status quo. Since lesbians deal with the same income equality issues as other females - I don't know if they offer insight on this issue since we're all in a "trying to survive" mode. But they don't deal with the paternity issue, so I think they do have somethings to say about some aspects of committed relationships.

I know that one criticism of the gay marriage push is the idea that monogamy, etc. doesn't need to be a part of how one is acceptable to society. For me, I view the religious opposition to "gayness" in general as a tell for the disgust for femaleness - b/c of the stereotype of how a male treats another male in a sexual relationship. I find it offensive for males to view my desire as disgusting if it's placed in the context of two males.

Monogamy is just easier when you have kids and are trying to live in such a way that you can afford to retire, etc. etc. But the reality is that even within monogamous relationships, women, esp. religious women that I've known, read romance novels and fantasize or just simply get aroused by the idea of others having sex - tho they would never see it in those terms... voyeurism as a turn on. So, it's not "cheating" if you don't make bodily contact with someone else, I guess.

I think the biggest problem with monogamy is boredom. The trade off is in other aspects of the relationship, and the relationship of parents with their children. But, even within monogamy, I think both women and men get aroused by others - they just take that feeling back to their marriage bed.

I don't care what someone is doing or not doing until they start telling everyone else what to do - or try to pretend they're doing something they're not, and this somehow makes them "good" in comparison to, say, someone who did the same thing but also decided not to stay with a partner.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
26. Threesomes
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:39 PM
Apr 2013

can relieve the boredom. Just throwing that out there, and that is something everyone decides to do

Unless, come to think of it, for me it involves a male: Eww.

Your mileage may vary.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
32. to each her/his own and all that
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:12 PM
Apr 2013

I'm no longer married, fwiw.

I've never met anyone, since I was married, that I'd want to commit to, so this is all abstract for me at this time.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)
15. Even polyamorous people usually pledge faithfulness to those they are dating.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
Apr 2013

Case in point: my girlfriend and myself.

We are in an open relationship. What that means is that we would request permission to see other people first.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
21. There seems to be widespread disagreement on what the word "Feminism" even means.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:13 AM
Apr 2013

As for marital faithfulness being 'relevant', I suppose it depends on the context, not just of the definition of Feminism but also how marital faithfulness (using at least the generally agreed upon definition of that) would relate to it.

If, for instance, divorce laws treated unfaithful women different than unfaithful men, I would think it might be relevant to Feminism. Or any other way that questions of faithfulness might plug into marriage law.

Furthermore, if there was a general societal expectation that men could or would be unfaithful but women couldn't (think Don Draper) ... that, to my mind, would relate to questions of Feminism.

If you're talking about a brand of Feminism that rejects the concept of marriage outright; if there is such a thing- then probably marital faithfulness or lack thereof would be beside the point.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
25. Trust maintained when offered is relevant to everyone.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:38 PM
Apr 2013

That said, there's a lot of equally-healthy ways in which that trust can manifest in relationships.

snot

(11,752 posts)
27. To my mind unconnected; and I'm not interested in either as a MORAL issue.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

There are sound, practical reasons, I believe, that feminism and marital fidelity should generally be expected to produce more generally desirable results for more people, as compared to gender-based discrimination and infidelity.

Feminism generally helps ensure that tasks and incentives are allocated based on ability and results.

Marriage generally ensures the most consistent supply of sexual satisfaction as well, among other benefits; and infidelity seems, for most people, disruptive of the benefits of marriage (most people don't seem to handle infidelity well).

 

Phillip McCleod

(1,837 posts)
29. it's actually fairly simple..
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:50 PM
Apr 2013

being a big fat cheater face has nothing to do with the the gender power disparity, socially or politically.

cheaters know they're cheaters because they feel like the lying, cheating sacks of shit that they are. chances are if someone feels like they're a cheater, then they had made a commitment in their relationship not to be a complete bunghole, and botched it, bad.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
31. I am not married, but have been in a number of relationships where it was understood that
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:05 PM
Apr 2013

we were not exclusive. Until they caught me cheating. Then it was a huge issue on their part. I could not understnd it. I guess they just thought that women did not cheat. Well, guess what, we do.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If one person does not want the other to cheat, they should make it clear that they won't cheat either. If I am not told that the person I am dating is free to do as he wants then I am free to do as I want. He has no right to get angry with me for being with another man. Sorry, but no commitment is no commitment and I am sick of men getting angry with me if I have affairs with other men when they don't want to commit in the first place.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Marital faithfulness is ...