Reference no: EM133425584

Readings: Justin Clardy, "Monogamies, Non-Monogamies, and the Moral Impermissibility of Intimacy Confining Constraints" and (highly recommended) Natasha McKeever, "Is the Requirement of Sexual Exclusivity Consistent with Romantic Love?"

1. What do you take Clardy's central thesis to be? In what way does his thesis complicate the standard binary between monogamy and non-monogamy? (Time-permitting, please define 'monogamy', as Clardy understands it

2. (Understanding Clardy's thesis) In as much detail as you can, explain whether Clardy would find anything morally objectionable

3. Briefly explain 'amatonormativity'. The clip linked to above arguably provides an "inadvertent" (unintended) illustration of 'amatonormativity' (and 'mononormativity'). Why might someone think this? Why would an accidental illustration of amatonormativity plausibly be a better way of illustrating the phenomenon than a more explicit endorsement of amatonormative ideals?

4. Clardy argues, with the help of these schematic examples, that intimacy confining constraints are impermissible. To the best of your ability, summarize his argument.

5. What are some potential objections one might raise for Clardy's argument? (Try to identify and explain at least two.) How might a defender of Clardy's view respond?