Natasha McKeever, “Is the Requirement of Sexual Exclusivity Consistent with Romantic Love?”

Posted: Mon, Feb 17, 2025

In-Class Activity

• Why do most people today practice sexual exclusivity within romantic relationships?
• Should romantic relationships be sexually exclusive?

Reasons to be sexually exclusive?

1. Protecting the relationship?
2. Avoding jealousy?
3. Distinguishing the relationship from other relationships?

Most people invoke (1) or (2); McKeever argues that neither succeeds in justifying sexual exclusivity.

McKeever proposes (3), with two caveats:

• (3) does not justify sexual exclusivity in all relationships.
• (3) also does not justify sexual exclusivity as a default expectation or a dominant social norm.

Protecting the relationship?

Some say that sexual exclusivity is justified because it protects the relationship.

McKeever: the argument

• proves too much: it’s not just sex itself but lots of other things that may lead to affairs; the requirement of exclusivity does not reasonably extend to hanging out or even just having friends of the gender(s) one is attracted to.
  • • This is an example of reductio ad absurdum.
• proves too little: some sex “has little or no chance of leading to an affair or to trading-up, such as one-off sex with a stranger on holiday whom one knows one will never meet again, or an anonymous sexual encounter had in a sex club.”
• undermines itself: sometimes it is sexual exclusivity itself that destroys the relationship (e.g., because they are dissatisfied sexually in their relationship or because they are unhappy about being in a relationship in which SE is a non-negotiable feature).

Avoding jealousy?

Some say that sexual exclusivity is justified because it prevents jealousy.

McKeever: the argument

• misunderstands jealousy: jealousy isn’t inherently incompatible with love; indeed, jealousy is often a sign of love!
• gives undue moral weight to jealousy: feeling jealousy is not in and itself a good reason to impose restrictions on another person (e.g., talking to people of the gender(s) one is attracted to).
• is totalizing: we don’t all feel jealous over the same things, and not to the same extent; in addition, jealousy can be managed (e.g., in polyamory).

Distinguishing the relationship from other relationships?

McKeever thinks that sexual exclusivity can be justified where it helps to give a romantic relationship its distinctive character.

• So understood, sexual exclusivity is a means to an end (instrumentally valuable), not the end itself (intrinsically valuable): “it can be a vehicle for the pleasure of the relationship, for its intimacy and for the sense of union typically felt by romantic lovers.”
  • Sexual exclusivity is not valuable when it does not contribute to this end (e.g., “if they do not have sex with each other because they are both asexual or physically unable to have sex, SE will not be of significance to them anyway”).
  • There are other ways to realize this end (e.g., non-sexual activity that you only do with your romantic partner(s)).
• This implies that sexual exclusivity cannot be a default expectation or a dominant social norm:
  • When sexual exclusivity is socially given rather than reflectively chosen, its value is greatly diminished.
  • When sexual exclusivity is presumed within a relationship, we tend to conflate sexual exclusivity with love itself.
  • When sexual exclusivity is the dominant social norm, romantic minorities are harmed: “For some people, limiting sex will severely impinge on their life, but this impingement tends not to be taken this seriously; instead such people are viewed as silly, selfish or immature and their desire for extra-relationship sex is seen as something they should ‘get over’. This is partly because many cultures still tend to value chastity and SE over promiscuity and continue to view sex with a degree of suspicion. However, having sex with different people can be life-enriching. Sex can be fun, pleasurable and can make people feel attractive and important.”