Is consent a firm foundation to determine if “whatever it is they’re doing” is what BYU students should be doing?
CONSENT INITIATIVES
This past week, BYU’s Daily Universe published an article in cooperation with byusextalks and RaYnbow Collective on recent pushes for education on consent. As a reminder, RaYnbow Collective hosted the infamous drag show at Kiwanis Park in September, where Sheri Don’t and Jenna Talia performed alongside BYU students. Video of the event made it onto the account, @libsoftiktok. BYU student Rachel Billings of RaYnbow Collective recently hosted a workshop on consent after noticing “a significant lack of education on consent, healthy relationships, and safe-sex practices” at BYU. The Title IX office also provides various resources to educate students on consent, hoping to mitigate sexual assault cases; Deputy Title IX Coordinator Abigail Morrison explained, “Consent is about communication, it’s a check-in, and it’s making sure both people know what they are agreeing to do, and they’re both comfortable doing whatever it is they’re doing.” Is consent a firm foundation to determine if “whatever it is they’re doing” is what BYU students should be doing?
The Title IX office defines consent as “active, ongoing, verbal, and voluntary.” Such factors are requisite for any romantic situation to be “consensual.” Other universities have implemented similar initiatives, mandating ridiculous, robotic interactions. Interestingly, Title IX’s resource never mentions the Law of Chastity; God’s law of abstinence before marriage is also absent in Billings’ push for “safe-sex” education.
DIVINE LAW
What is forgotten when posters such as “Consent is Cool” and “No means No” become slogans for sexual ethics at BYU? When any sexual act is okay when affirmed by verbal consent, no boundaries are set. The carnal desires of a fallen world will inevitably creep into the university when the Law of Chastity is simply an additional resource rather than a divine decree. Fornication and homosexual behavior are often consensual and enjoyed by both parties, but consent does not make such actions correct. To have a practical, proper sexual ethic, it must begin within God’s Law of Chastity: It is the law on which all other sexual norms and policies are to be predicated. Education merely on “safe-sex” practices undermines God’s law, for it bases the moral justification for fornication and homosexual behavior on whether they are “safe” rather than “chaste.”
PRUDENCE
Prudence, the virtue of wisdom and self-discipline, is a practical alternative to simple “consent.” Romantic relationships between a man and a woman are incredibly complex, with many subtle cues to be interpreted. The Law of Chastity may be silent on how to approach a first kiss, a handhold, or subsequent actions that align with God’s law. In contrast, the contractual, quasi-economic agreement of consent is fantastical. The uncertainty and unexpectedness of romance are what make a relationship exciting; what is a first kiss if both parties must verbally affirm their desires before and throughout the duration of the kiss? Such situations must be approached and enjoyed with wisdom, prudence, and caution.
Title IX’s resource on consent describes various situations where a consensual line has been crossed; non-consensual petting and reaching under clothes are designated as “red flags.” However, are such actions “red flags” because they were not consensual or because they crossed a line of God’s law? Title IX’s resource only implies the former. Such interactions can be avoided by relying on prudence and the Law of Chastity. When the Law of Chastity is the foundation of dating and relationships, there is a set boundary on what is acceptable and unacceptable; prudence then guides our desires and actions as we work within the established boundary, ensuring no line is crossed. Necessarily, prudence within the bounds of the Law of Chastity is first predicated on a love for God, then a love for your neighbor.
THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS
The two great commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself, are principal Christian characteristics. Man must love God and His commandments before loving his neighbor, platonically or romantically. This is the implied argument of Dallin H. Oaks’ talk “Love and Law.” The reversal of these two great commandments can lead to advocacy for sin out of a false idea of “love.” Policies on consent are prey to the same fatal reversal; God’s law is considered secondary to the “love of the consent” of one’s neighbor. Acceptance and advocacy for fornication, homosexual relations, and other sexual improprieties on the basis of consent are symptoms of such a reversal. Additionally, when the Law of Chastity is subjugated to consent, women are more likely to be sexually abused.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Louise Perry, author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, makes a convincing argument that “although ‘but she consented’ may do as a legal defense, it is not a convincing moral defense.” Perry tells the stories of countless actresses, models, and pornstars who, under the notion of “consent,” engaged in abusive sexual acts and then, after their careers, realized the significance of what happened. Perry argues:
“Even if you accept the liberal feminist claim that it is possible for someone to truly and meaningfully consent to being strangled by their sexual partner, you are still faced with the problem of how the law is supposed to differentiate between consensual and non-consensual instances of sexual violence” (Perry, p. 290).
Such legal cases of sexual violence cannot recognize any moral claims, but only whether consent was present, leaving the door open to endless interpretation and ambiguity. Consent is thus no longer a liberating sexual ethic, but a demoralizing false promise. Sexual assault and rape are not consensual, but neither are they in line with God’s law; such actions are outrightly condemned in scripture and by modern-day Prophets. With a sexual ethic founded on the Law of Chastity, such acts are unthinkable and unjustifiable.
A REVERSION TO GOD
I wonder what moral implications the “Consent is Cool” posters communicate to BYU’s student body. Do they promote clean, chaste relationships, or only provide a starting point to continue to do “whatever it is they’re doing?” Initiatives on consent acquiesce to the sexual Spirit of the Age instead of attempting to cure the underlying problem. They presuppose that since improper sexual relations are bound to happen, we must at least provide a way for them to be “safe.” These initiatives must be subject to the conditions of the Law of Chastity. Consent has done nothing to slow the moral decadence of the West. Instead, it is merely another manifestation of our degraded sexual ethic. We must, if I may use the phrase with the Anti-Racists, “root out” sexual promiscuity. To conserve a Church university in a morally wavering world, the Law of Chastity must retake its place over initiatives on consent.
Written by: Jacob Christensen
Contributor at The Cougar Chronicle
The opinions of this piece are those of the author
The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
