Got your attention? This post is not about homosexuality, but sexual ethics. Read the first post here. I am reviewing Marie Fortune's book, Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics for the Rest of Us.
Relationship Ethics: Part II
"Love does no harm to another." (Romans 13:10)
This is the basic principle of Fortune's book. It also sounds like the Hippocratic oath. "Do no harm." Fortune understands that this is a "negative" ethic and that "doing most good" might be a loftier and more worthy goal. This was my first thought as well. Fortune is a realist. She suggests that doing least harm is about what we might expect to actually achieve. But if we take this principle seriously, the implications are deeper than we might first realize.
Fortune suggests that within our patriarchal culture, there is a blurring between love and harm. Violence is sexy (television, movies, song lyrics). As much as I love to dance around the room and play my air guitar to John Cougar Mellencamp's "Hurts So Good"--"C'mon baby make it hurt so good. Sometimes love don't feel like it should...you make it hurt so good."--I wonder, "What is he saying?" Mellencamp is mild. In our culture, violence is sexy and sex (if it is good) should be violent. Where did we get this notion?
Fortune also points out that batterers explain violence as a manifestation of love. "I loved her too much to let her go." (p. 35) Women stay with abusive partners because, "I love him."
We need some clearer definitions of love and harm so that we do not confuse the two. One of the most disturbing quotes in her book was from a fifteen-year-old girl in a church youth group who said, "Well, all I know is that I don't think my boyfriend really loves me. He hasn't hit me yet." (p. 60)
Some definitions:
Love: "...a passionate, affectionate desire characterized by genuine concern for the well being of the other." She also says that love of self (as opposed to self-centeredness)means doing least harm to self, which includes self-respect and expectation of respect by one's partner.
Harm: "...that which inflicts physical pain, damage or injury and/or diminishes the other person's dignity or self-worth." Again, harm can be done to oneself. (p. 35)
Fortune then applies the ethical principle of "love does no harm" to some of the rules we have inherited. I will quote this next part in full:
"Does masturbation cause harm to anyone? Not in and of itself. Like any other human activity, it can be misused and thus harm oneself or one's partner.
Does premarital sex cause harm to anyone? Not in and of itself. But like any sexual activity, premarital sex could harm another if it is not authentically consensual, is not done with full knowledge, does not include protection against pregnancy and disease and is not engaged in by two persons who are emotionally and psychologically mature and are peers to one another.
Does homosexuality cause harm to anyone? Not in and of itself any more than does heterosexuality. Any sexual relationship has the potential to do harm to self or to another regardless of the genders of the persons involved. But lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and heterosexuals have the capacity to engage in relationships which embody love, care, equality, respect, justice, etc.
Fortune then lists five guidelines for applying the doing least harm principle. Guidelines are different than rules in the following ways: (p. 37-38)
1) Guidelines are shaped in an ongoing process; rules are generally static.
2) Guidelines are formed and carried out with others in community; rules are established by an authority (or a self-proclaimed interpreter of authority!)
3) Guidelines provide a framework (an internal anchor) with which to make choices; rules are externally imposed and may not have a reasonable basis.
Here are Fortune's five guidelines for intimate sexual relationships. Again, I quote in full:
"1. Is my choice of an intimate partner a peer, that is, someone whose power is relatively equal to mine? We must limit our sexual interaction to our peers and recognize that those who are vulnerable to us, that is, who have less power than we do, are off limits for our sexual interests.
2. Are both my partner and I authentically consenting to our sexual interaction? Both of us must have information, awareness, equal power, and the option to say "no" without being punished as well as the option to say "yes."
3. Do I take responsibility for protecting myself and my partner against sexually-transmitted diseases and to insure reproductive choice? This is a question of stewardship (the wise care for and management of the gift of sexuality) and anticipating the literal consequences of our actions. Taking this responsibility seriously presupposes a relationship: knowing someone over time and sharing a history in which trust can develop.
4. Am I committed to sharing sexual pleasure and intimacy in my relationship? My concern should be both for my own needs and those of my partner.
5. Am I faithful to my promises and commitments? Whatever the nature of a commitment to one's partner and whatever the duration of that commitment, fidelity requires honesty and the keeping of promises. Change in an individual may require a change in the commitment which hopefully can be achieved through open and honest communication." (pp. 38-39)
1) Can you think of ways in which violence is sexy in our culture?
2) How do describe the differences between rules and guidelines? When might one be preferable to the other?
3) What is your initial reaction to the five guidelines for relationships?
4) Might these guidelines have any bearing on whether or not a particular sexual relationship is pleasing or displeasing to God?
A final thought. Fortune begins chapter two with this quote from John Stoltenberg, from his book Refusing to be a
"What matters is the center inside yourself--and how you live, and how you treat people, and what you can contribute as you pass through life on this earth, and how honestly you love, and how carefully you make choices. Those are the things that really matter." (p. 33)
We had a thread about sex that got kind of wild and silly; so you posted these threads about sex in order to give us the opportunity to start over and talk more intelligently and reasonably about sex; and...where'd everybody go?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll give it a try. Violence is sexy in our culture; isn't tonight the last episode of the Sopranos? Tony Soprano as a pop culture figure says a lot in itself. I worry about young people's notions of sex, given the celebrity culture we live in. I've read that more and more young people want to be or think they will be a celebrity themselves. This coincides with the pornification of pop culture, where porn stars are celebrities themselves and other celebrities take their cues from the porn industry. Kids watch more TV than ever these days and I wonder what this sort of thing does to their notion of sexuality.
Not that sex is a bad thing of course; my initial reaction to the five guidelines is that they seem fairly reasonable.
Regarding violence and culture, take the notion of PG-13. We were asked in a previous thread to keep our comments to a PG-13 level, which is fine, no argument there. But in movies, isn't it odd that we can watch the Governator (or whoever) shoot people down by the dozen; we can actually watch murder in a realistic fashion, and that's OK; but it is regarded as objectionable to see a person, man or woman with no clothes on? Nope, you're not old enough to see a person naked, because I have family values! What kind of twisted logic is that?
I focused on youth because they need to know and think seriously about sexual ethics as they become sexual beings themselves in this confusing world. Teens therefore should be a part of these kinds of discussions; at home, at church and at school.
The blog world has a short span of posts one can read. These are pretty long.
ReplyDeleteGreat comments, Bobby.
You are right on about the PG-13 thing. In Europe, as I have heard, I don't know for sure, but they tend to me more restrictive on violent films and less so on films depicting sexuality. Which is the reverse here.
I think the guidelines that Fortune makes are helpful ones. I, too, think they need to be talked about with youth.
I actually agree, Bobby. It is hard to imagine what else our kids are going to face in the future.
ReplyDeleteTo some people love can be harmful and hurtful. I do not view love that way.
Some forms of love may not be physically hurtful, but can hurt you spiritually or hurt your walk with God.
Thanks, I've been happily married for over a decade, so its easy for me to feel centered and grounded and not associate love with harm. Being a parent I naturally default to worrying about my kid and her generation. Parents play an important role no doubt about it, but we need to be having discussions like this on a societal level. People don't necessarily need all the right answers so long as they have a healthy ethical framework to gage their relationships; do no harm is a good general concept, whether people view it as biblical or spiritual in nature or just good common sense.
ReplyDeleteBobby,
ReplyDeleteBeing raised the way I was, I would have to say common sense. I have a great christian family and was raised with tons of love. But some people who grow up in aggressive families think that is the way to do things. It is sad.
You are right in saying that it needs to be discussed on a societal level. Everything else is.
I also have been married over a decade. (Hard to believe :)) My husband and I grew up in two ENTIRELY different settings. He was abused and later abandoned at 11 years old. But to have been through what he has, he is doing very well. God Bless!
Sorry to hear what your husband went through Shelly. While we're on the subject, it is worth noting that the East Tennessee area has the Sexual Assault Response Center, a non-profit organization that offers free and confidential counseling to victims of sexual assault and/or abuse.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to get him to go to counciling, but he would rather talk about it to friends. He wasn't sexually abused, he got hit and cut, and locked in a closet. He is very claustrophobic. (spelling)? Anyway, he is doing a lot better now. When we first got married he could not understand why my family was so close. It was a big adjustment for everyone. It was hard, real hard at times. But with the good Lords help, we made it and are doing ok.