Unitarian minister the Rev. Deborah Haffner of the Religious Institute, whom we last saw advocating a change in sexual mores among clergy, is now peddling her fish to United Methodists regarding their teenagers. She writes in the newsletter of the General Board of Church and Society:
More than 15 years ago, I developed a framework for a moral sexual relationship. I believe, based on my more than 30 years as a sexuality educator and now as a minister, that a moral, ethical sexual relationship — whether one is married or single, 16 or 35 or 80, gay, bisexual or straight — is defined by five criteria: It is consensual, non-exploitative, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected, if any type of intercourse occurs.
Please note: according to Haffner, unmarried 16-year-olds can have moral, ethical sexual relationships. Note as well that, just as marriage is not necessary for a “moral, ethical sexual relationship,” neither is commitment (life-long or otherwise) or monogamy.
I teach adolescents and young adults to remember the five criteria by thinking the word CUHMP or by a mnemonic of the first letter of the five criteria, “Can U Have My Pleasure?”
The “word” CUHMP? “Can U Have My Pleasure?” Does anyone know what this even means?
We go on to talk about that the five criteria need three conditions: communication between the partners, adequate time for the relationship to develop and shared values. These criteria are more ethically rigorous than abstinence until marriage because they apply to intimate relationships both before as well as after marriage.
Haffner flatters herself. “Communication,” undefined “adequate time,” and equally undefined “shared values” may be fine things (and in the case of the first, communication certainly is foundational for any meaningful relationship) that will help make a relationship better. But these are not “ethical” criteria, which are means for determining the rightness or wrongness of an action or thought. As in so much of the work that has been done by Haffner and like-minded thinkers, they have confused formulating ways of making people happy with helping them make moral decisions.
Most parents, public health professionals and religious leaders agree that most adolescents, especially those in high school or younger, are not ready for mature sexual relationships that include intercourse. The wisdom of religious traditions confirms that a moral sexuality demands self-understanding, respect and self-discipline.
It’s nice to know that Haffner recognizes that “most adolescents” are not ready for sex. It’s a pity that everything she advocates seems directed toward facilitating what teenagers shouldn’t be doing.
August 31, 2009 at 5:13 pm
It seems to me that the person in question has the letters in the wrong order. She suggests CUHMP but if our young (or not so young) people were to follow her suggestions, what they would be is a CHUMP.
August 31, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Interesting. While she makes a disclaimer about age, what she does not say is more revealing.
“…most adolescents, especially those in high school or younger, are not ready for mature sexual relationships that include intercourse.”
She uses the term most. Does this mean that some are? She also says that only “sexual relations that include intercourse” should be avoided for adolescents, but she does not exclude sexual relations that do not include intercourse.
This is a very dangerous woman and a very dangerous movement. (IMO) All those who have signed on in support of this excrement should immediately receive church discipline.
August 31, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I think “Can U Have My Pleasure?” is a lyric from a rap song, about what rap songs are about. But, then again, I could be wrong.
September 1, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I think “CHUMP” is a better acronym for this proposal.
September 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm
There is another oddity here.
The author (whether or not intentionally, I have no idea), maintains that “protected, if any type of intercourse occurs” is a necessary in a moral, ethical sexual relationship. Yet immediately before this passage she indicates that her ‘five criteria’ apply to married people as well as the unmarried.
If by protected, she means to indicate birth control, then she seems to be saying that actual procreation is unethical and immoral.
September 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I noticed that as well, Will, but assumed it was simply the result of bad writing, rather than entirely deranged thinking.
September 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I think it’s a very open question.
September 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
David – I think you’re probably right, but I’ve heard enough 0 population growth types to actually wonder.
September 1, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The biggest problem with this proposal is that it is based on one person’s moral, ethical position. But what makes it so? Without a foundation outside of one’s self, how can one define ethics? Certainly #5 (protection) is outside the boundaries of Catholicism, inasmuch as she means use of devices to stop STDs and pregnancy and not real protection (staying faithful in a marriage relationship). But the others are problematic outside of our cultural framework as well. Many cultures arrange marriages; thus, those relationships break consent (at least in the modern sense). Other cultures (and even religions) are against sexual pleasure for women, which is why we see genital mutilation. Still other people choose (I don’t know why) to be exploited and enjoy that in their relationships. What makes her position moral by these other standards? I’m not saying I agree with them — not hardly. I’m just pointing out that without choosing an external standard, it’s all relative, which is a big problem.
September 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm
This lady just scares me– as a father, as a husband, as a pastor. Relative is right, the imperial self sets the standards in Haffner’s world.
The Roman Catholic church is so much more biblical, when it comes to this than us mainline protestants.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210519/Never-mind-pillow-talk-couples-told-Roman-Catholic-church-PRAY-sex.html
September 1, 2009 at 3:46 pm
You left out the open marriage clause: “These criteria are more ethically rigorous than abstinence until marriage because they apply to intimate relationships both before as well as after marriage.” I guess that means it is more ethically rigorous to use a condom while cheating on your spouse????? Abstinence is too easy???? hahahaha