SEXUAL ANRTHOPOLOGY: NNLT VS. FEMINIST REVISIONISTS

June 2014

In The Sexual Person by authors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler (Sawler), we are presented with multiple views on humans and the sexual being. Exposure to traditionalist, Natural Law Theorists, Revisionists, and Sawler’s own perspectives, widens the understanding of the Christian view on sexual acts while providing multiple perspectives that help question the interpretation behind the moral laws. Compare and contrasting the Natural Law Theorists and Feminist Revisionists, I will explore their perspectives on sexual anthropology and conclude with my own interpretation of the sexual human.
Beginning with the New Natural Law Theorists (NNLT), their main perspective behind the sexual person is mostly thread within the principles of the physical being while almost completely disregarding the “emotional” or personal human. The NNLT follows the specific natural law, which reflects the human inclination towards reproduction and preservation as a species, much like that of the animal kingdom. The only difference, however, is that humans have the ability to become united through the act of procreation. The NNLT choses to focus on the generic natural law, choosing to emphasize the importance of the biological and natural meanings of a sexual act, rather than the specific natural law, which chooses to emphasize on the personal and relational meanings of the sexual act. The NNLT prioritizes the biological over the personal in defining a marital act. One such example used is that of marital rape – according to the NNLT, this form of rape could potentially be a marital act because organic complementarity and freely given marital commitment are in place. Focusing on Feminist Revisionists, we see a somewhat drastic change in perspective. While the NNLT has chosen to focus on the biological perspective of