A Justice-Based Sexual Ethic (Part 2)
if I lie and promise a level of commitment that I have no intention of keeping [“Oh, baby, you know I love you and will love you forever…”] for the sole purpose of obtaining consent from someone [“so how about we make out tonight?”], that person is giving consent to something they might not otherwise if I had been completely truthful [“I’m really horny and you’re hot so how about we just suck face for a while?”]. My lie is a misrepresentation of my own concrete reality and thus, I am not obtaining free consent, I am coercing it.
Read full article here: http://trybestpractices.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/a-justice-based-sexual-ethic-part-2/
In short, whereas the posts on sexual salvation, made a case for knowing one’s self (specifically one’s sexuality), here Farley states that in loving the concrete reality of another, we must love the totality (the reality) of who that person actually (concretely) is. And, of course, that includes loving and respecting the totality of the other person’s sexuality – their sexual needs, desires, and boundaries.
Full article here: http://trybestpractices.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/a-justice-based-sexual-ethic-part-1/
This is like the married version of the posts I’ve been writing lately:
“The message of the Christian sexual ethic shouldn’t be ‘save sex for marriage and everything will be great,’ because it won’t.”
“Because when someone is having sex does not matter to me as much as whether or not they are doing so in a manner that is healthy, respectful, consensual, and gracious.”
“Healthy approaches and attitudes to sex first. Then we can talk about whether or not marriage is the ideal (it might just be).”